In my experience, the bulk of the articles on Wikipedia are quite accurate, especially slightly obscure non-controversial ones. High-profile controversial articles also tend to be fairly accurate, since they are usually under close scrutiny of both sides in a debate.
There is a problem, however, with some articles on obscure but controversial topics. With those it occasionally happens that faulty information is added without anyone being there to spot it and correct it.
Lots of info but as long everyone can edit there its not reliable. I wouldn't use it as a doctor
Despite being a 3 year old thread... I don't agree with this statement. Wikipedia is very accurate, the users are Nazis when it comes to citing references and accuracy.
Despite being a 3 year old thread... I don't agree with this statement. Wikipedia is very accurate, the users are Nazis when it comes to citing references and accuracy.
lol I'm not going to argue a 3 year old statement, but I will still say wikipedia is "as is". It is the sources you should surf to - not cite wikipedia itself
lol I'm not going to argue a 3 year old statement, but I will still say wikipedia is "as is". It is the sources you should surf to - not cite wikipedia itself
Can't be that inaccurate if schools are checking Wikipedia for stolen articles for their student papers.
Comment