To what extent do you trust Wikipedia?

[Sci-2]

I use it to learn the plots for TV shows/comics/books/video games/movies, but outside of that I find myself using it less and less for any info on a serious topic.

The one place I can see it being useful is explaining certain proofs, algorithms, and problem solving techniques. These would obviously have to be double checked but if you have some understanding of the subject you should be able to evaluate the quality of the material.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

One semester in college twould separate professors called it rubbish.

[all swedes are racist]

I trust it implicitly. The word of god rendered by man.

[TrueMetis]

For serious stuff it's a decent starting point.

[The Drunkard]

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.

[Suttree]

One semester in college twould separate professors called it rubbish.

Rubbish to use for a citation, yeah that should go without saying. That said it's a fine place to use as a jumping off point.

[Underfoot]

For serious stuff it's a decent starting point.

Yeah, I generally use it to get a broad understanding of the topic. It can also be a useful starting point for research, as you can just follow the citations for more trustworthy information.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM has the right. Wikipedia is a good starting point but not an authoritative one. Only well sourced articles should be trusted.

[Adam_Up_Bxtch]

A site where everyone and their mothers can change Abraham Lincoln's place of Birth to "My Balls" is not a reliable source for information.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I trust it implicitly. The word of god rendered by man.

I completely agree. what I'm getting from this thread though is that there are various skeptics and conspiracy theorists who question the monolithic and enduring truth of Wikipedia.

[Sci-2]

TM has the right. Wikipedia is a good starting point but not an authoritative one. Only well sourced articles should be trusted.

If it's not authoritative to what extent could it be a good starting point?

This is why I said only in the evaluation of proofs and equations, where the reader can bring their own knowledge to bear, could it be useful outside of catching up on entertainment plots.

It's not hard to make a biased article look neutral - that's pretty much one of the few useful skills I got out of my worthless high school.

[The Fallen]

Isn't it monitored? So that My Balls would be corrected. I use it for non-serious info, especially since it's at the top of the list for any search. But I would never cite it in any serious setting. Heck, I wouldn't even cite it on these boards.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

If it's not authoritative to what extent could it be a good starting point?

This is why I said only in the evaluation of proofs and equations, where the reader can bring their own knowledge to bear, could it be useful outside of catching up on entertainment plots.

It's not hard to make a biased article look neutral - that's pretty much one of the few useful skills I got out of my worthless high school.

There are no sources that aren't biased. I trust Wikipedia as much as I'd trust any five or six page summary of what could be somebody's entire field of study. Unless there's a specific reason to not trust it, like its a very contentious subject, or the cutting edge is so new it wouldn't be on the article.

[1918me]

With my life.

...But in all seriousness, if it's something important, I'll always try to look for primary sources. That being said, I've found that it's generally quite accurate, and use it a fair amount.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I find it incredibly useful. Naturally, none of my professors ever allowed its use as a reference in a dissertation or thesis, which is totally understandable.

But to have a single source where, at the touch of a button you can get decent insight into anything from the specifications of a Glock 17, to the nature of a Polywell fusion reactior, to an overview of all the episodes of the Walking Dead, well, it has changed the world.

It is the first port of call for any information search. Then, if the matter is serious enough, one can expend more effort looking for corroborating sources of greater credibility.

But in my experience, Wikipedia is pretty accurate. Its bad reputation is rather overstated, in my view.

[Gneisenau]

Why don't you use proofwiki instead of wikipedia ?

[Free Northman Reborn]

Why don't you use proofwiki instead of wikipedia ?

I just googled proofwiki and it seems to be a site limited to mathematical proofs. Seems of rather limited value to someone searching for information on anything that isn't related to some mathematical theory.

[Gneisenau]

I just googled proofwiki and it seems to be a site limited to mathematical proofs. Seems of rather limited value to someone searching for information on anything that isn't related to some mathematical theory.

But the OP uses wikipedia for proofs, so why wouldn't they use proofwiki instead ?

[Shryke]

A site where everyone and their mothers can change Abraham Lincoln's place of Birth to "My Balls" is not a reliable source for information.

And yet overall more accurate then encyclopaedias.

Which people trust implicitly.

[Free Northman Reborn]

But the OP uses wikipedia for proofs, so why wouldn't they use proofwiki instead ?

ok.