Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

How Much Do You Trust Wikipedia?

<< < (2/8) > >>

wraith808:
It depends?  I don't trust it as a single source.  I check the references and if the references are verifiable and dependable, then I lean towards trusting it.  I only truly trust it when (a) I know what it is, or (b) I am very sure of a source that checks it out.  I use wikipedia as a starting point and a convenient place where possible facts are accumulated- and a convenient place to send people if I know that the facts check out, and with the caveat that things can change.

f0dder:
I'm with wraith808.

And I find that, in a way, wikipedia is more reliable than standards sources, because you can look at the history and talk pages - gives a pretty good indication of topics where something is afoul. Obviously you need to fact-check, but you'd have to do that with "traditional" sources as well.

I'm giving it a '4'. Not as in directly "4-trusting" the articles, but the whole platform (references, talk, edit-history).

40hz:
I approach any reference source the same way I handle a new hire: Take what you see at face value - but always check background and references.

Unfortunately, now that self-censorship, calculated disinformation campaigns and propaganda have come to be seen as the norm, you really can't trust anything completely and unconditionally. Even the noblest attempts at providing accurate and unbiased information can easily be corrupted by carelessness, deliberate deception, or somebody in a positon of authority who is pursuing a personal agenda or "higher truth."

In the end, in the absence of verifiable and repeatable test results (which leaves out at least half of all human thought and activity) the best you can do is crosscheck statements, examine bona fides, "follow the money" (where appropriate), continue to examine and question, and keep an open mind.

So no, I neither trust nor distrust Wikipedia. I use and take it for what it's worth. It's only one place I sometimes stop when I'm looking for something.

And yes, like IainB, I much prefer the Britannica when I need to use an encyclopedia. :Thmbsup:

tomos:
And I find that, in a way, wikipedia is more reliable than standards sources, because you can look at the history and talk pages - gives a pretty good indication of topics where something is afoul. Obviously you need to fact-check, but you'd have to do that with "traditional" sources as well.-f0dder (November 18, 2012, 08:28 AM)
--- End quote ---

I agree.

I've been involved in a talk page discussion re a political topic, and it was a very frustrating experience. But it was interesting all the same. My point is that looking at the talk page in question (I dont want to link) would give a very good idea of the problems, tensions, and different viewpoints re the topic, yet these were barely reflected in the page itself (which upset many people, me included).

TaoPhoenix:
I guess I trust Wikipedia somewhere around a 2. My use cases for Wikipedia tend to be looking up movie actors, chemical classes of medicines, and light general knowledge. Usually the rawest facts are "near the right ballpark", long enough to satisfy an hour's curiosity of some topic like the financial panic of 1908 ( If I remember - I'm typing this on my phone!)

So maybe the speculations are up for interpretation but no one really disputes that J.P. Morgan was in the middle of it all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page