wikipedia - yay or nay

[sniffa]

peopLe swear by wiki - i say it's shit, and cannot be trusted to be accurate.

[LynzM]

1. Peer review says....

They are equivalently shitty, at least when it comes to science.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

[sniffa]

2. agreed

hi sweetie. :loveya:

[LynzM]

8. heya

How's life these days? :hi:

[Hugin]

3. It's pretty good where it hasn't been corrupted by someone's "agenda".

If it's a hot-button topic "That piss is shit." as Sir Laurence Olivier said about
a certain movie once.

[kick-ass-bob]

6. My thoughts precisely.

:thumbsup:

[DS1]

4. I prefer urban-dictionary

[Beware the Beast Man]

5. Like anything on the net, highly unreliable.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. The things that I have used it for I have found to be rather accurate

and oft times, quite well written.

But then, I was looking up stuff that I knew at least enough about to know if they were off base.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Nothing can be trusted to be accurate, but...

the times I've used Wiki it's usually spot on for the basics of a subject and a good place to start. It sure beats goggling and finding a "quick" answer on page 12.

If I have to quote a source, I'll go somewhere else.

[Mutley]

10. I'll sometimes use it to get information

on which I will then go find a reliable source. But that's about the best I can do.

[ghostsofgiants]

11. I prefer Uncylcopedia

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[alarcojon]

12. Good source for basic facts

For example, I had my students look up the odds for all the poker hands on Wikipedia. I first went through and computed them myself and got the same answers.

When it comes to topics with political or ideological implications, you read Wikipedia like any other source - acknowledge that it has a bias and go from there.

[realisticphish]

13. for political issues

no i don't trust it. But for everything else, or even for a basic overview of a political situation or term, it's great

[Squatch]

14. Take it with a grain of salt.