What's with all the wikipedia hate?

[Cybersief]

Okay well first off lemme ask, who here doesn't think wikipedia is a reliable source, or even hates it?

Now. I understand you can edit the pages, oh my! People must put false information there, huh? Well. No. Anyone ever try to edit a page? You do one thing wrong they IP Ban you. They require citations for almost everything, which is linked on the bottom, and they keep history of previous ones. I mean, they got mods everywhere making sure people don't write anything stupid. Also, the page editor is a bitch to edit with. It's in it's own code-language practically.

So... Pretty much, it just bothers me how people are so against wikipedia, unless it says "Tom smells like farts[8]" on it, then I'm pretty sure the info is legit.

Anyways... Enough ranting, what do you guys think?

Anyone here hate wikipedia? Why? What do you have against it?

[EvilerBowser1001]

You don't cite Wikipedia as a source, you cite the citations as sources in whatever project you're doing.

It's just plain full of wrong information sometimes, especially if it's really obscure stuff.

[Ss2-teen-gohan-Ss2]

Tom smells like farts.

[UberCream]

I like wikipedia. I mean, they're more reliable than any other site on the internet, and they always site all of their information properly. [1]

[SmileyFaic]

I LOVE wiki.
If there's bullrap (yo) I recognize it.

[Cybersief]

At 11/8/09 03:03 AM, UberCream wrote: I like wikipedia. I mean, they're more reliable than any other site on the internet, and they always site all of their information properly. [1]

Yes I know. But of course you'd have to be an idiot to believe anything that obviously doesn't sound right. Generally, just look at the citations. I use it a lot just for them.

[tarahloveshentai]

I have nothing against the site and I often use it to learn something I didn't know before.

It only seems that my College is against Wikipedia and using it which I completely understand and follow the rules.

[Timmy]

Wikipedia is fine to get general information on any given subject in a small amount of time, but it shouldn't be relied upon for any formal research.

You need to be sure the information you are learning is reliable while researching a source, and as along as Wikipedia is editable by non-experts it is not 100% reliable.

[1Tyla1]

The internet in general gets criticised in its reliability from what I've seen, but if it's so unreliable, why is it so extensive? If someone just grabs one source, takes notes and uses that for something, they're going nowhere anyway and that is their fault, not the internets'. If they study from different sources and compare them, then they are doing it right.

Wikipedia isn't the "one stop shop" for all of your information needs. It also isn't a useless waste of space either. It's just an encyclopedia to help educate people.

[Cybersief]

At 11/8/09 03:17 AM, 1Tyla1 wrote: Wikipedia isn't the "one stop shop" for all of your information needs. It also isn't a useless waste of space either. It's just an encyclopedia to help educate people.

Yup. That's pretty much what I'm going for. What bothers me is the people who reject wikipedia to the point where they refuse to believe anything on the site.

[LolHi]

I like Wikipedia. I wasn't allowed to use it in my school reports last year. but I did anyway. I did well.

[Auz]

I don't have anything against Wikipedia although I don't use it that often anymore. In highschool we had to write reports often and it was alright for us to use Wikipedia as a source at most subjects. We all used it since it was the quickest way to look up information. Nowadays at my university I usually go to other, more reliable sources. Occasionally I just look up a formula or some property tables at Wikipedia but that's about it. Only other thing I use it for is looking up random, unimportant facts.

Anyway, I think it's fairly safe to assume that whatever is written on it is correct.

[All-Hallows]

Wikipedia is a quick fix for knowledge about things that don't really matter.

Like say, one time I was wondering how nougat was made, so I looked it up.

As you get more technical, like say, particle physics, you might not want to rely on something that any bonehead can edit. Some of the people editing use outdated sources, or are heavily biased, so you can't really trust exactly what they say. It's a good point of reference for things you are just wondering about, but if you want to do real research, you got to put in the work.

[PinballWizard976]

What happened to using the old encylopedia books? Now that shit's reliable. In my room I have a 26 volume set, one book for each letter of the alphabet. It's from like 1980 something, but it's written by people who know what's up (I can't believe I just said that, but give me a break, it's 4:30 in the morning).