How reliable is Wikipedia?

Post Reply New Topic

As we all know anyone can edit wikipedia content. So when I am using it for research I am always mindful of this, and end up asking myself should I use it at all?

Recently I was looking at a page on agriculture, and it started off by saying: "Agriculture developed at least 6 years ago." While this may not be an incorrect statement it is misleading to say the least, and it appeared obvious that someone had gone in and deleted a few zeros from the date.

So how can wikipedia ensure their content is not sabotaged? And is there a more accurate alternative?

On scientific and mathematical matters, quite reliable. But rarely comprehensive or complete.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 03 Jan 2012, 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I generally find both the neutral and controversial stuff reliable and I don't worry too much about sabotage since it usually gets replaced anyways. I wouldn't use the articles themselves as a source though since the articles are constantly changing. I would use the sources within the article.

Any vandalism often gets found out quickly, so it's fairly trustworthy. I've only ever noticed it twice.

I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for anything outside of a forum post, though. If I was writing a piece of coursework or whatever, I'd use the sources in Wikipedia, or some sort of other more trusted site. Academics dislike Wikipedia.

I consider any encyclopaedia to be a tertiary source. They provide a good overview, and a high level approach to subjects, but no researcher should ever rely on them for primary material. However, any researcher could easily follow an encyclopaedia (or wikipedia) article as a pointer towards original research (primary sources) and towards monographs (secondary sources).

Well, I do a lot of research myself, and let me share my opinion.

Wikipedia is extremely accurate, in general, for exactly the same reason that you should never either use it as a citation or take the information in it for granted. For the EXACT same reason. The thing is, you shouldn't cite information from Wiki because a correction might be made to some of the material in the article in question. It might bring the article closer to the truth, but the claim that you might have stated was in the article when making your citation is suddenly null and void. Save yourself from looking ridiculous, and follow the SOURCES used by Wiki's editors. Read through those, and use them when making your citations. Usually, they are reasonably good.

Furthermore, you also have to take into account that user created content is going to be subject to the biases and beliefs of the people creating it. It might be that they are giving you accurate information, but there is a lot of liberty within the context of "accurate information" to give one particular point of view preferential treatment. It's not as epidemic on Wikipedia as some people claim, but it's something you have to consider.

On the other hand, Wikipedia may have a more current take on a topic, and the information they are working with is coming NOT from just one institution but from a variety of different sources. In many cases, you actually will find a more diverse set of points of view on the same topic by looking at a Wikipedia article, whereas a seemingly authoritative source might have deep biases that are not readily obvious. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles are generally very intuitively arranged and extremely readable. Finally, they have a lot of content that might otherwise be very hard to find all in one place.

So there are advantages and disadvantages to Wiki. It is an invaluable resource for a determined and perceptive mind, but it also has potential drawbacks. These drawbacks can be avoided. Ultimately, I am glad that Wiki is out there.

I'd echo all of the above and add that it depends as to the purpose for which you are using it. If you're wanting an introduction to a subject it is generally fine but the more that hinges, within your piece of reserch, on the particualar piece of information you are seeking, the less reliable, to this end, will wiki be. For example, if you just want to know how long ago agriculture started and wiki says 6 years then that is fine, but if in your essay, or whatever it is, you want to go on to, say, argue that agriculture originated in such and such a place at such and such a time, and that is central to the thrust of the essay, wiki will not be reliable for your purpose.

This is the important point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia of any sort is not usually an appropriate source for an academic paper, nor should it be considered authoritative, but it is definitely reliable for a brief overview or good introduction to a topic. This applies every bit as much to the vaunted Britannica or World Book encyclopedias as it does to Wikipedia.

Anyone can edit wikipedia.

Which means that whenever you try to vandal an article or include lame info, there are hundreds of eyes watching and reading to revert your edit in case your stuff sounds like BS.

For scientific and mathy matters it is quite reliable. It is also great for pop culture and video game information...

Do notice that as any encyclopedia, you are not supposed to use it as a source but just as reference and to find actual sources. So, if you are seriously researching into something, click on those [1]s and [2]s and check the references...

Yeah, I've never had a professor who would allow any encyclopedia as a source, but I've had a few to suggest wikipedia as a place to get an overview and find sources for a topic.

Reliable as long as reputable sources are cited

As it's likely to have been said here, check the references first. Only ONE of my teachers so far has allowed use to reference Wikipedia in University (granted that it was about India and the like, which is a bit hard to get wrong nowadays). He called it, the "communism of knowledge".

I asked the following on Wikipedia's talk page.

A reply:


My reply:


Needless to say Wikipedia unbias really only extends so far. 2011 will be my last annual donation.

Generally the case for mathematical, scientific and technical subjects. If there are any citations missing the article is clearly marked as deficient.

ruveyn

Yes, but when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, Wikipedia's policy seems to be a double standard. When posting major doctrines and tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses their policy does not allow even citing bible references as the source for our beliefs. They paint the picture that the tenets and doctrine come from men and not from God's word.

This not only invalidates Wikipedia's claim to be fair and unbiased but it also creates a bit of hypocrisy. When I read Wikipedia articles for other faiths their holy books are cited in ample supply, but not Jehovah's Witnesses. I can cast my objections to Wikipedia's double-standard policy by simply withholding my annual donations.

Nope. It is you who are extremely biased in this case, and falsely interpret Wiki's fairly straightforward factual description as biased because it does not evangelize for your view. Wikipedia says plainly that JW doctrine is based in their interpretation of Scripture, and then it states their interpretation. That is about as unbiased as it is possible to be.


Nearly every claim I see in the Wiki article for JW is backed by a citation from a Watchtower publication, which would constitute the official, authoritative JW view of a given issue. And of course those JW publications will cite Scripture that they interpret as supporting their beliefs.


You are of course perfectly free to do so. May I ask how much you used to give in your annual donations?