Do you find Wikipedia to be a credible source of information? Why or why not?

At times yes,other times it's just nonsensical and I think "How the hell am I supposed to understand this?"

I do actually. Why people say it isn't just because anyone can edit it is beyond me. When you edit it, if you put BS in it they will get rid of it. Trust me, I know first hand. >_>

I think it's pretty credible seeing as how everytime I've used it, it's right on the money.

I think that for some subjects where there is extensive research, and many sources, Wikipedia can be a credible resource, because the notes supporting a point cite their sources at the end of the article. Lately, they have been rather strict on what can or can't be posted, because there aren't enough sources. So, in a way, it can be as credible as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Encarta.. only they'd be online where the information is constantly updated.

However, for other articles about things like gay marriage, or other subjects where people's personal opinions about the subject can affect the neutrality of the article, then I find Wikipedia not to be as credible. I've heard of government employees editting wikipedia article to make political candidates, and politicians look favorable to the public, so I would never look to Wikipedia as a source of information about how good, or whether or not a politician is doing his job.

Mind you, I have my own opinion, and so, I wouldn't need to look something up to have one.

I would look to Wikipedia for information about something, but not whether something is right or wrong, and I'd certainly look for other sources of information before resorting to Wikipedia.

That said, I have used Wikipedia as an additional resource to anything I was researching, and my professors had no problem with it.. I also took the initiative to consult them beforehand, just to be sure.

Well, i think i would say 50-50. When it comes to normal subjects like games, tv shows and all those mind polution subjects, i think that wikipedia tends to have credible reviewers. now if we talk about subjects that aren't understanble for a large public, like new cientific researchs, philosofy itself...it think that the fact that everyone can just butt in, in what the previous writter wrote, it will make the information pretty much confusing, wich will probably lead the reader in mistake...

Creditable in everything thats not oponionated.

It depends. Wikipieda has got a reputation of being generally erratic at my school, but for some things - for example, if you are doing Journey's End for English - Wikipieda CAN be usefull.

Academically, I've always been told not to use wikipedia... However I'm not sure if I agree with this. Wikipedia is a highly regulated and moderated site where thousands of knowledgeable people gather and make sure the facts are right...
It is updated constantly, as opposed to books that have to wait til the next reprinting, and lots of things that are closely related to a subject are linked there for convience. So it is atleast valuable in that manner.

Wiki>google

i believe it's good choice when google isn't helping u find the info u require so keep both opions open.

amen to that

i use wikipedia for how-to's and unreleased game info. when a game date is pushed back *cough (brawl) * the wiki for that game gets updated.

Ever since years ago when it told me that a "Super Smash Bros. 3" was comming out, I loved the site. No one believed me when I told peeps that another smash was coming out, then all of a sudden:

"Hey, did you hear that another Smash game is comming out?!"

Me:.......Last year. GTFO.


And then They used my brother's photography. I think it was found if you typed in Iraq or Iraq war or something. I think they changed it, but they did use it. I was so proud.

but as for credibility, I dunno. Because I was never allowed to go there for acedemic reasons, I never bothered to look at things seriously there. I do go there for trivial things, like "The most powerful handgun" or "List of Megaman X series Mavericks" and other stuff I wanna know for no reason.

People change things on their too many times to be an actual reliable source.

However for some things i find that its useful. Such as looking up health issues and what not.

Actually, they ave been very strict on unverified sources, and do not allow people to edit articles without them.. so under that criteria alon, you could say that they were reliable.

They've been cracking down on that ever since the CA has been editting the articles of politicians.

If you look at "lightsaber" in Wiki and go to the near bottom where it explains where things similar to have been seen(Lightsabers in popular culture), you'll see:

The deuteragonist Zero from the Megaman X series also uses a variation commonly known as the Z Saber first as a secondary weapon in the second and third games, then as a primary weapon in the later games.


I did that a while back :D

I think Wikipedia is really a realible source of information. It always appears first in the google search list when you search on something. But the problem is that it has alot of information, which sometimes can be long to read when looking at one of the articles. And there's some sentences which I dont understand.

When Sonic the Hedgehog 06 came out I added some info to that. It was credible too.

Everything on that site is credible or it is removed. I have first hand experience with that part.

Its actually a good idea on editing information on wiki, but sometimes can be bad. Because some users can put false information or random words.

I trust Wikipedia in general, although I have seen a few pages that had been tampered with. I think one of them was the page for chickens, of all things.

The best pages to mess with are the ones you know no one really looks at.

I only edit pages if I have something to contribute.

I don't use Wikipedia as much as I'd like to though cause I'm not allowed to use it for school due to it's ability to be tampered with.

I'm not supposed to use it for school, but I do anyway. Besides, you can really tell if the information is fake. It's usually blatantly obvious.

Yeah we tend to muck about on it at school as they've really emphasised the "NO GAMES" policy over here. If we get bored we try to find hilarious or interesting facts while still making it look like school work...

And we get bored pretty easily at time :unsure:

I think Wikipedia has done a bit better over the years. Ive been seeing a lot of citations location VIABLE sources. Such as who said it, or link to an article. They don't take stuff from potentially crappy sources.