Why can't Wikipedia be used as a source of information?
 

Yes it is mostly created by anyone and everyone. But isn't it a collection of information put together to be as accurate as possible by those who know most about the subject? If it can't be trusted on a certain topic then what can? A book written by just one persons point of view? If a professor edited an artical to be more accurate is there no way for his information to overrule something written by Joe Shmoe or at least be edited to be correct by others?

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide accurate information. It's goal is to help point people in the right direction by providing them with ways to narrow down the information they are looking to find.

Each entry has a reference. If something isn't accurate, someone can change it. It's a living document, per-se.

Yes. I see it's purpose as summarizing each reference for quick reading. But who is to say the reference is factual?

Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source because it's not a source. No new information appears first on wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). It's a collection of second hand abstracts. Encyclopedias get there information from somewhere. That somewhere is the source.

What's the difference? Try playing the telephone game sometime and you'll see why. Ray Morris include in a report that based on his analysis of 1,00,000 hits, 48% of porn surfers on gay sites used IE at least part of the time. The next day someone who read the report will post on GFY that most people on gay porn sites use IE. Someone will read that and later post on wikipedia that most IE users are gay.
What the source said and what was put on wikipedia are not the same.

That's why you have to check both the reference and the context within the reference for schilarly work. If the reference is Fred Phelps, you don't trust him even if someone puts a Phelps quote on wikipedia.

Heh that's a good point.

Is there no editing on Wikipedia by people with first hand knowledge of something? Everything has to have a source to link to?

Hopefully nobody would be that dumb. Gays tend to adopt new technology pretty quickly.

/threadjack

think studies have shown it to be more or less as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. like anything, read critically, be aware of bias and check sources.

If you Google search wikipedia mistakes, you'll find some funny ones. ;)

Don't forget to tell people you attended WU (Wikipedia University).

Wikipedia Is A Pro-Obama, Tax-Exempt Scam, Senate Candidate Andy Martin, a U.S. senate Candidate Claims

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_396003.html

Andy Martin's Wikipedia entry describes him as a "vexatious litigant" and "perennial candidate." The entry notes that he asserts that "Obama's real father is not Barack Obama Sr., but is Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist of the 1950s."

sounds legit.

I'm wondering which of them threw the first punch :1orglaugh

Ok, critique it, based on your own thinking. Be aware of any bias, fair enough. Check sources, who is to say the sources are accurate? I guess this could go into some deep debate about what sources of history are accurate.. I see Wikipedia as just a summary of accurate data.

People will believe someone who studies encyclopedias all their life but Wikipedia can't be used the same?

Not familiar with the person but maybe that is accurate? Or is there no one close to him that could fix that erroneous information?

And how does Wikipedia rank their word over some random person? Maybe this is the problem.

andy is welcome to stick with conservapedia if he doesn't like wikipedia or start his own version.

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

http://conservapedia.com/Jesus

http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

who is saying this? some neckbeard on the internet?

http://www.wikicountability.org/

Rove Group Launches Anti-Obama Wiki

One of the country's largest and most powerful pro-Republican advocacy groups with ties to Karl Rove has launched an online clearinghouse for internal Obama administration documents to expose what it says is a failure by the president to be as transparent and open as promised.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/healt...ry?id=13202388

go familiarize yourself with the posting and editing rules.

there have been efforts to have similar sites with experts in the verification chain but no idea what happen top them.

I don't know where these jeopardy people get their information lol. Just saying that the people or things used as sources have to get their information from somewhere too, who is to say that info is even accurate?

It's a lying thieving mess of propaganda.

That's what I'm saying. It's a collection of data by the masses formed as accurate as possible. If someone edits something with some bogus info then it will surely be changed by someone in the know soon, or not accepted at all. Unless the particular page doesn't see many views, then it could take a while lol. I'm mostly talking about important historical information that is in it, not some entry about a celeb falling down or some shit.

Of course the general population can be convinced that some false information is accurate, and that will be inserted into Wikipedia. But the same can be said for all of the text books that teach our world what they know.