Reliability of Wikipedia and methods of research via information technologies

[Marin]

Don't mind the title I felt like writing a long one for no real reason.

So, everyone knows what Wikipedia is and everyone used it for something, some more, some less. For example, I use it when researching things like history, philosophy, science and religion. Being someone whose interests go most closely with apologetics, I find information about these subjects valuable.

That being said, a crucial step in looking for information is making sure you're looking at the right place. Wikipedia being my main source of information and starting point in research, its reliability is an important question. The internet is sorta divided on how reliable Wikipedia is. A lot of people (including myself) find Wikipedia a good and reliable source of information for the most part. I say for the most part because the occurance of errors is not rare, but not common in the field of my study.

There are those, however, who claim that Wikipedia is not reliable at all due to its very nature of being open for editing by anyone who feels like it.

I am going to give my reasons why I believe Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, right now.
First and foremost, we'll need to see what makes a source of information reliable. In my criterium, there are 3 that are most important. (There are probably more so if you got them fill in.)

- Objectivity -

The most important part of giving informations as a platform is for you to be objective, i.e. non-biased. You must write the informations as proffesionally as possible, with no real affection for any view in particular.

- Facts -

What I mean by this is that an article must not promote something that isn't a fact as one. For instance, an article must not claim the Earth is flat, but must state that there is a theory of Earth being flat, wich is proposed by flat-earth societies.

- Sources -

I can't stress enough how much I hate when people say things without backing them up in any way. So, for something to be considered a valid source of information, it must provide sources for its claims. For instance, if someone writes an article about some famous philosopher making a statement wich is relatively unknown and doesn't provide the source from where he got this.

These were the 3 things a source of information must have in order to be considered reliable. Now I'll get into why Wikipedia passes the tests above.

1. It's objective

Always written in a calm tone, I have yet to run into an article wich leans to one side or the other. In articles about science, history or philosophy, there is a direct rational approach in wich there is no trace of any form of bias (in great part due to the fact that these sorts of things don't leave much space left blank), there is no shaming one particular worldview while praising another.

2. It differenates facts from something that has yet to be established

This ties directly to the previous one. ^
Science and history articles are presented by solid facts with no room for things that are not factual. There are separate articles for proven scientific theories and those that are merely speculation. All of the facts are backed up with sources wich leads to point 3.

3. It provides sources for every statement it makes.

Unlike many articles on the internet, Wikipedia's articles are well constructed in a manner of footnotes and sources being available at the end of pretty much every sentence. It doesn't just list the sources at the end leaving you to search for the passages yourself, but provides a direct clean view to the matter ahead.

While indeed being free for everyone to edit, all changes (well most) are observed by editors and admins before they get to stay, and even if a mistake does happen, there are forums on wich people can always point out informations they deem false or half-true.

I can't guarantee that every article is a 100% true. That's not the case. In my ventures I have become pretty confident that articles wich deal with topics like science and history are valid. The reason why some articles containt errors is due to the fact that if an article isn't popular or important, admins won't pay much attention to it. For example someone could write that Justin Bieber is a baboon, and an admin may not look into it due to the relative irrelevance of the article.

Some topics take priority over others, that's just how it is.

This was a bit of my own stance on this topic. If anyone has a different opinion or their own methods of doing research on the internet do share.

 

[BlacLord™]

Wikipedia is a reliable source. Content is tightly moderated and information has to be sourced from reliable sources.

 

[Urda]

I like books because they are better sources. Anybody can write up on a website and call it facts and people think it's real.

 

[Marin]

I like books because they are better sources. Anybody can write up on a website and call it facts and people think it's real.

But those reliable books are used as a reliable source for an article.

 

[Urda]

But those reliable books are used as a reliable source for an article.

Paperback books >The Internet

Although, I do admit, the internet is the fastest way to obtain information, but you're not supposed to believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I like books because they are better sources. Anybody can write up on a website and call it facts and people think it's real.

And then those books are cited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is tightly moderated, and without sources, information is deleted.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Wikipedia is a reliable source. Content is tightly moderated and information has to be sourced from reliable sources.

This.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Paperback books >The Internet

Although, I do admit, the internet is the fastest way to obtain information, but you're not supposed to believe everything you read on the internet.

Fam, you know not all books are reliable either, right? The Internet is as good as any library.

Hurr durr fire is scary thomas edison was a withc

 

[Dark Sonic]

In some way Wiki's are reliable but I go on different sites if I'm doing book reports loll

 

[Bored38]

I obviously inspired this thread so i'll contribute
I won't post the link because everytime I do, it gets deleted :/ but i'll tell you where to find it so you can look for yourself.
Before I start i'll remind you that I admitted to using wiki myself but for me to come to a conclusion on a topic, wiki will only be a small part of any research I do.

One publishing about wiki that explains it well is a publication from Harvard University. Its a section titled Harvard Guide to using Sources and the title is "Whats wrong with Wikipedia"
The second paragraph states, "when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. Case in point an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find his fictional entry. Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the sites entries, there is considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays." End quote.
What i've said concerning wiki stands. It also stands that Albert Pikes authority on all things concerning Freemasons is and always will be more authoratative than Wikipedia. Enjoy your day

 

[Xlad]

It's reliable since information has to be drawn from credible sources. Any entry must have citations added or else they'll be deleted. However, they should not be directly cited for purposes such as writing research paper and what not. Especially when one is in college or university.

 

[Avani]

And then those books are cited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is tightly moderated, and without sources, information is deleted.

Yeah. It's a good starting point in the least. One can always start checking out the books or other cited source for more clear picture or accuracy of the material. A lot of internet sites have wrong facts or maybe heavily biased but the same may go for many of the books.

 

[Urda]

It's reliable since information has to be drawn from credible sources. Any entry must have citations added or else they'll be deleted. However, they should not be directly cited for purposes such as writing a research paper and what not. Especially when one is in college or university.

That is the whole point. How can you call it reliable, but can't use it for this purpose?

 

[Horus]

Once relevant citations are attached, I trust Wikipedia.. However, if i have physical books to do research from (or PDF's because its easier to search for stuff), then I'd go down that route instead.
Once information is sourced from credible documents/roots, I trust it. Of course I would research on how credible these roots are.

 

[Marin]

I obviously inspired this thread so i'll contribute
I won't post the link because everytime I do, it gets deleted :/ but i'll tell you where to find it so you can look for yourself.
Before I start i'll remind you that I admitted to using wiki myself but for me to come to a conclusion on a topic, wiki will only be a small part of any research I do.

One publishing about wiki that explains it well is a publication from Harvard University. Its a section titled Harvard Guide to using Sources and the title is "Whats wrong with Wikipedia"
The second paragraph states, "when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. Case in point an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find his fictional entry. Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the sites entries, there is considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays." End quote.
What i've said concerning wiki stands. It also stands that Albert Pikes authority on all things concerning Freemasons is and always will be more authoratative than Wikipedia. Enjoy your day

This thread isn't completely related to your post. The only touching point is the question of its reliability. Let's keep Pike and co on that other thread.

And I know exactly wich article you're talking about. Basically, they're just making it out to be this big place full of lies in wich you need to "watch yourself". And it's weird how they didn't give the source of this fictional entry in an article all about sources.
It's really more about don't copy stuff from Wikipedia! Search elsewhere!
Nothing unusual for universities.

And as others pointed out, all claims have sources, so you can always check them and if they don't the article gets removed.

 

[Bored38]

This thread isn't completely related to your post. The only touching point is the question of its reliability. Let's keep Pike and co on that other thread.

And I know exactly wich article you're talking about. Basically, they're just making it out to be this big place full of lies in wich you need to "watch yourself". And it's weird how they didn't give the source of this fictional entry in an article all about sources.
It's really more about don't copy stuff from Wikipedia! Search elsewhere!
Nothing unusual for universities.

And as others pointed out, all claims have sources, so you can always check them and if they don't the article gets removed.

I think its established that wiki isn't a one stop shop for information.
Another thing to consider is that no one source covers it all on any given topic. Spend more time looking at as many sources possible, even if a particular source doesn't share your view. After doing so you will certainly have a deep and well rounded understanding of what you researched.
My old History teacher use to get so mad at me when I would ask him questions on a topic from a different view point than he was teaching.

 

[~Ethereal~]

Before Wikipedia was filled with unreliable junk, now it's moderated with references. But it's still better to use text books(modern) and lecturer sources.

 

[Bored38]

Id like to add that we should all be skeptics of everything we read until we've read enough to be confident in our conclusions. Information is powerful. Don't think thats not very well understood by powerful ppl in this world. Having knowledge and understanding of the contribution Signund Freud and his nephew Edward Berneys made as it relates to guiding group thought through information. The impact is substantial.

 

[Marin]

I think its established that wiki isn't a one stop shop for information.
Another thing to consider is that no one source covers it all on any given topic. Spend more time looking at as many sources possible, even if a particular source doesn't share your view. After doing so you will certainly have a deep and well rounded understanding of what you researched.
My old History teacher use to get so mad at me when I would ask him questions on a topic from a different view point than he was teaching.

When did I say it was?

This is about wether or not it's reliable, and I laid out why it is. And that's the beauty of Wikipedia. It doesn't cover one view, it doesn't represent anyone. It draws facts from its sources and presents them objectively for people to see. If anything, it makes you want to look at the sides to see what they think about the presented material.

 

[BanGinji]

"...when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation..."

It's as reliable as the source material. More often correct than not but still susceptible to misinformation. It's a credible source but i think it's best to confirm what you read on it than take it as fact.