Wikipedia. So...how accurate is it?

Hasn't this subject been discussed here already?

Instead of running off at the mouth again, I'll simply say that Stephen Colbert and his example involving the elephant entry makes a more resounding statement as to the stupidity of Wikipedia than I ever could hope to make myself.

It also doesn't help that "founder Jimmy Wales has already told users not to cite Wikipedia as a source". (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060801-7396.html)

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sosei

Most of the time, I think of the accuracy as something that's proportionate to the amount of users editing; the more users involved, the more likely that things like shitty comments that aren't related and topic focus is key.

The problem with that is because I can guarantee you that the vast, overwhelming majority of people on Wikipedia have no right to write about any of the subjects they edit.

If one person was to write a convincing, well spoken edit that Harrison Ford is a closet homosexual, and then 10 people made sure that the edit would stay there - it becomes fact to someone else who reads it without a grain of salt.

Before you say "Well, this is the internet, they should know to be skeptical!" - thats the whole reason that Wikipedia does not and will never work. Some people don't know enough not to take things at face value while others simply see it as a tool for disinformation or humor.

It simply boils down to mob mentality. If X people out number Y people on Subject A - then whatever X wants becomes fact for Subject A. I don't know about the rest of you - but why do you want to be a part of ignorance? Do you have such fun chasing the Frankenstein Monster up to that windmill?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

I remember a study that showed that Wikipedia was only slightly less innacurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.

The problem with that is that the statement only lasts as long as the space between entry edits.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sosei

anyone beliving anything on Wikipedia as ABSOLUTE TRUTH deserves to look like a fool.

So then - why have it at all? If its to be used as ANY type of reference - not for school papers but to find even the most asinine subjects and is prone to being askewed by e-jerks, what good is it?

Do you people LIKE being lied to constantly?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by EmmDoubleEw

That won't happen, Wikipedia is ANAL about citations.

Somehow - people on the internet (which in and of it's self is an extremely dubious thing best left for a seperate discussion) aren't the smartest, most talented or best equipt people to say anything about any subject ever.

Why? James Pearson Assfuck of Bounty Hive, Montana can pretend he's Professor Bordem Q Faggot and stick 3,000 facts about any one given subject to hide any one given lie. That single lie totally destroys whatever validity the subject has because who's to say someone is to find it?

How many times does someone edit an entry and have some asshole take it down because it slanders what they like? I've heard of that happening all too often on sources about Hans Zimmer or James Horner. Say whatever fact you like about a subject - if some shitheel on Wiki disagrees with it, they can delete it.

In the short run, all you are is a mouthpeice of ignorance and stupidity by even glancing at that site.

Originally Posted by EmmDoubleEw

Because a source of information doesn't have to be an official reference to be useful.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life.

Information doesn't have to be TRUE for it to be USED. What are you, Sean McCormack? You going to tell me that theres UMD somewhere?

Originally Posted by EmmDoubleEw

The official rates of innacuracies in Wikipedia are about the same as those of Encyclopedia Brittanica ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...d_in_Wikipedia) which makes it a reliable source for casual browsing.

Citing Wikipedia about the validity of Wikipedia is like asking a rapist if he's guilty.

That aside, casual browsing in the way you paint it is fine if you enjoy being lied to. If thats your thing, fine - but I don't tolerate it, so if you want to go on being an uneducated ponce, don't tout it here is all.

Originally Posted by EmmDoubleEw

Really, the number of times I've used Wikipedia for non-academic research far outnumbers the times I've used it as a starting point for an essay... And still, Wikipedia often provides citations for its facts, which most often can be used for academic purposes.

No, it isn't -- this is empty Lunix jerk rhetoric, a clear example of people taking a term that has nothing to do with their project because they think it sounds smart.

The Wikipedia isn't a form of peer review at all. When you submit an academic paper for peer review, it's actually reviewed by the acknowledged, accredited experts *before* publication. The Wikipedia does none of this -- it publishes without any sort of review at all, and it in no way shape or form guarantees that your writing will be reviewed by experts.

How ya doing, buddy?