Wikipedia as authoritative source? Not.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Once again Wikipedia has been used as a source for (authoritative??) information on a given topic here on the forum.

This bothers me. Wikipedia is NOT authoritative imo, since anyone and everyone can submit and addend their own brand of information to existing articles, or create new articles. Who can know the truth???

Even Wikipedia itself has volunteered this statement (btw, I find it very ironic to quote Wikipedia on the merits of Wikipedia}:

Quote:

There has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials. Information is sometimes unconfirmed and questionable, lacking proper sources that, in the eyes of most Wikipedians, is necessary for an article to be considered "high quality". However, a 2005 comparison performed by the science journal Nature of sections of Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica found that the two were close in terms of the accuracy of their articles on the natural sciences. This study was challenged by Encyclopædia Britannica, who described it as "fatally flawed".[3]

3 ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (March 22, 2006). "Fatally Flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature" (PDF).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

I'd best stop now afore I spit the dummy.

[Dr. Shane]

It is no secret that Wikipedia is not that reliable but it is free and accessable.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But what is the good of something if, even though it is free and accessible, it is not reliable? Sorta like hopefully I'll get a smidgeon of truthful info, don't know which part it will be, but by golly...some of it will be be true?

I guess I just don't do well on that kind of source of info...makes me nervous. But I know lots of people have no problem with it at all. Guess it just is a personal *thing*...

[Amelia]

I guess because its not entirely unreliable but it does point to other referrence sites on the topic you are reading. I have yet to come across something that was totally unreliable.

[cricket]

I like Wiki as a general starting ground. From there, I can parse out the truth. It might be a relief to know that Wiki isn't considered a reliable source for any of our schools--students cannot use the site as a source for reference in their reports.

2 cents.

[David Koot]

Once again Wikipedia has been used as a source for (authoritative??) information on a given topic here on the forum.

Where? What thread?

[David Koot]

Wikipedia is a 'pop' encyclopedia. It certainly would not pass muster as an academic source, nor, I expect, would it pass peer review. I believe that a person can at times find material in its articles to support different points of view. IOW objectivity may be an issue. I question if there is a fully-functioning editorial board that vets the entries.

Dave