Wikipedia, good or bad?

Wikipedia, a endless source of information, but how accurate is this information? i have noticed that in my school we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for information now. it has to do with the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia with wrong information. but i have noticed that they need citation and if they don't it gets marked with a (citation needed) thing right by it. so what do you think, should it be allowed to be used for school projects and what not, or baned from that?

Picture of Wikipedia, good or bad?
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 68Next »
NachoMahma9 years ago
1) You can get bad info anywhere. All human endeavors are prone to error. I'd be willing to bet there are numerous errors in The Encyclopedia Britannica, NY Times, &c.
2) Any researcher that doesn't double-check their facts and/or uses only one source is a fool.
.
. An outright ban on using Wikipedia shows a definite lack of insight. Using Wikipedia as one's only source should be prohibited - just like with any other source.
dsman195276 (author)  NachoMahma9 years ago
yea, but Wikipedia is editable by everyone. so if some one wanted to put something that was not true in there they could. other websites can only be edited by a small amount of people. thus decreasing the risk. also the few people that can edit it would have made the site so they would be more willing to check the information.
> Wikipedia is editable by everyone
. To dismiss Wikipedia because it might have bad data just doesn't make sense to me. Part of being a good researcher is determining who/what is a good source and who/what isn't.
. All the pages I've seen that do not have outside citations are plainly marked as such. When citations are given, they are usually linked to the source so you can examine it with a click.
.
> can only be edited by a small amount of people. thus decreasing the risk
. And that smaller group is likely to have less review and and fewer resources for double-checking.
.
> also the few people that can edit it would have made the site so they would be more willing to check the information
. I reject that outright.
.
. Yes, Wikipedia does contain errors. So does just about every other reference manual, text book, encyclopedia, web site, &c. Should any source that is found to have an error be banned?
they have a team of people looking over it and making sure what you submit isn't bogus. My friend tried to do one on himself and it got rejected
I dunno about "team of people" but bogus info is definitely dealt with swiftly -- one time I found some, went to edit it out, and was confused when I couldn't find it; someone else had already removed it.
The BBC did a study on the accuracy of Wikipedia v Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia came out slightly better. (second article here for Britannica's response)
jtobako jtobako9 years ago
Sorry, the article was on the BBC, the research was by Nature (the journal).
Funny story related to that article... Our school library has anti-Wikipedia propaganda on just about every surface, which bothers my friends and I. To rectify this situation, we shelled out the 20 cents, printed that article off, removed an ant-Wikipedia poster and tacked it up in it's place. They still haven't noticed (it's been months).
Nice! Stupid school librarians (they tend to be the ones that failed everywhere else) Most non-school librarians are incredibly smart
I've found school librarians to be very helpful but with a very sensitive BS detector-maybe that's your problem? Considering the extra layers of school bureaucracy that they have to deal with, it's not surprising...
1-10 of 68Next »