Wikipedia -- How much do you trust it

[rowech]

1-10 scale with 10 being fully and 1 beign not at all. Poll forthcoming.

[jeff061]

I say 3. I used to trust it implicitly, but I've just seen too much garbage. Some of it is just blatant, but I likely wouldn't pick up on the more subtle entries.

I'll still use it for quick references, but if my information needed to be 100 percent accurate it would never be my main source.

[gstelmack]

I use it for stuff not critical. I would not expect good info on political or religious subjects, but if, say, I wanted to start reading Lois McMaster Bujold because everyone raves about the books, I would certainly trust Wikipedia to give me the correct order of the books so I know which ones to look for.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I use it for stuff not critical. I would not expect good info on political or religious subjects, but if, say, I wanted to start reading Lois McMaster Bujold because everyone raves about the books, I would certainly trust Wikipedia to give me the correct order of the books so I know which ones to look for.

This.

[Fidatelo]

I probably trust it more than I should.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I use it for stuff not critical. I would not expect good info on political or religious subjects, but if, say, I wanted to start reading Lois McMaster Bujold because everyone raves about the books, I would certainly trust Wikipedia to give me the correct order of the books so I know which ones to look for.

This again.

[ColtCrazy]

I'd say about a 6. Like gstelmack, I'd use it for more casual information. I wouldn't count on it for current events or anything even remotely controversial. But if I'm watching TV and a particular actor is mentioned, I might look them up there to see a little more about them. Or, if I see some random historical thing, I might look it up to get a rough idea what it was about but not cling to the details too much. It's a springboard reference point to me, giving me enough to know how to look it up elsewhere.

[terpkristin]

Depends what I'm looking up (as most people seem to have said). I don't trust it fully for many things, even those not controversial in some way or the other, but as a starting point or a place to get a general picture of what something is or its history, or to get a quick fact (what a Clementine is, for example), it works and it works well. And, I do enjoy Wikipedia surfing when I need a few moments to clear my head.

/tk

[whomario]

about a 6 or 7 i´d say. At the very least it´s an excellent starting spot to get information on a subject and give you an idea on what to look for.
Overall i think it´s about the greatest idea anyone ever had, greatly apreciate it being there.

Obviously i wouldn´t use it for professional purposes or for an important school paper, but for my own purposes i definitely use it a lot. Like said, in the very least it´s an excellent starting point.

Also use it excessively at work (library) when customers are looking for quick and easy information (biographical data, order or works etc) .
Yeah, there databases that give more accurate info, but none offer as much information on as many subjects as easily accessible and understandable.

[RedHawk00]

said 7 as well, used mainly as something to jog the memory of a fact I knew at one time or another. Sometimes even to settle a casual discussion at work about sports history...

[Cringer]

Fully. It is 100% true, not sure why anyone would doubt that.

**insert giant f'n wink here so you know I am being sarcastic**

[lighthousekeeper]

100% trust.

Last night after waking up at 3am, I found myself surfing the following entries to cure my insomnia from 3am-5am, not once doubting the content:

Nuuk
Kangeq
Paul Egede
University of Greenland
Air Greenland
Thule Airforce Base
Permissive Action Link
Nova
Accretion
Cataclysm
Pompeii
Bolinar Peninsula
SN 1572
Cassiopeia A
List of supernova remnants
Tunguska Event
Tunguska
Castle Bravo
Tsar Bomba
Novaya Zemlya
Mount Vesivius
Lake Cheko
Funen

I guess since I'm only looking to satisfy idle curiosity, a few small inaccuracies doesn't bother me enough to think about it.

[lighthousekeeper]

can one of the doubters point out some inaccuracies so i can know that i shouldn't trust everything read there?

[samifan24]

I look things up on Wikipedia when I want general background information on a person, a movie or a place, for example. If I want more specific information I use different sources but I find Wikipedia find for learning the gist of things. I voted 5.

[Peregrine]

I trust it like I trust everything on the Internet - fully and with my life.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

can one of the doubters point out some inaccuracies so i can know that i shouldn't trust everything read there?

One of my first visits of Wikipedia was when I was googling for a historical list of FIFA Player of the Year awards. I quickly noticed somebody purposely misposted the final standings of the 1998 poll (switching the 3rd ranked and some much lower ranked player). Additional browsing made me find out the error was cross-posted across several pages. I fixed it quoted a FIFA document as my source (good thing FIFA actually had that document on their website).

I quickly realized I'm only going to use wikipeida as a bookmark to websites to find whatever I'm looking for.

I graded Wikipedia as a 5 in this poll.

[Wolfpack]

I'm probably about 5-6. It's a good time-waster and occasional resource for some information that won't subject my computers to potential ad website problems (say, looking up the BCS standings from 1998, as opposed to going to another site that might have it, but has nasty ad popups or other things of that nature). I'm by nature a skeptical reader, so I usually don't take everything in an article as gospel and definitely am more leery of controversial subjects. Still, it's fun to sometimes go to the front page, click on an article, link, link, link, and then look back and wonder how I got to where I am.

[Lathum]

I'm a 7. As a student I'll use it for a starting reference point but that is about it.

[Noop]

Like Lathum said it is a good starting reference point and recently I have been using Wikipedia to learn more about quantum mechanics. From what I have learned from Wikipedia I have been able to start my own research and gained a new hobby as I learn more and more.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I'm a 6, and I'll echo what others have said. I like using it for general, broad-stroke sort of information. For specifics, I'll read the info, but know that it's most likely biased, if not out-and-out incorrect.

[sovereignstar]

.

[RainMaker]

Probably a 5. I use it more as a starting point when looking something up. It can give you a good overview of someone which you can then go and use in looking stuff up from more reliable sources.

I still think it gets a worse rap than it should. Considering how many innaccuracies are found in media stories and other "reliable sources" out there, Wikipedia does a good job on most stuff. The problem is on the more controversial stuff there seems to be a lot of ego issues with editors who get off on having some power in their lives. Jimmy Wales also seems to be a sketchy character who has put up false info on his own.

[bhlloy]

I voted an 8 with the caveat that I'm never using it for anything important, just a casual "oh let me look it up on Wikipedia" when something comes up in conversation.

If I have something to look up for work (or if I was back in school and doing a project) or something more important than that, absolutely no chance I'm looking at Wikipedia -at least not as my primary source.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still think it gets a worse rap than it should.

It does. I a a college student and every professor seemingly gives a lecture about how it is the downfall of modern academia at the start of the quarter.

[molson]

I said 9, though wiki is only an entertainment thing for me.

They "anybody can edit it" criticism is way overblown. It's really an amazing resource. Probably the 2nd best thing the Internet has accomplished, after porn.

[JediKooter]

I'd say about a 6 or a 7. I usually look up the references at the bottom and see if it jives with what the wiki article said.

Now, the Conservapedia....I trust it -1,000,000.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It does. I a a college student and every professor seemingly gives a lecture about how it is the downfall of modern academia at the start of the quarter.

Some instructors ban it entirely. Others are okay with it.

My stance is Sure, you can use it... but you'd better give me more than the minimum sources needed then and those other sources had better be from books by credible experts or from peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

For me personally, it's a 5. I use it for a quick sketch background reading so I have a general idea about a topic, place, person, monument, whatever, before diving into more detailed research.

[Mustang]

Depends on the subject matter and the level that people would tend to screw with the information. In doing casual reading on say, the Viking I expedition to Mars, I trust it. If I was doing reading on say George W. Bush, not so much.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think we have a consensus and just a difference of opinion on what that consensus means as far as a number-rating

[molson]

There's a huge difference between academic v. non-academic use of wiki

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Noop

Like Lathum said it is a good starting reference point and recently I have been using Wikipedia to learn more about quantum mechanics. From what I have learned from Wikipedia I have been able to start my own research and gained a new hobby as I learn more and more.

New hobby?

What, you building a supercollider in your backyard?

[Karlifornia]

I said 9. I've never been led astray by it, because, like others said, I only use it to settle bets, jog my memory, etc.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

New hobby?

What, you building a supercollider in your backyard?

No way I'd be way too scared too cause a mini black hole. It's just something I want to understand because I feel it will be useful once I have established myself financially.

[Marc Vaughan]

I use it a fair bit for general research, they're normally pretty accurate on the main imho (no worse than any other info site really) - but if its something important then I always look for verifacation from several places.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It does. I a a college student and every professor seemingly gives a lecture about how it is the downfall of modern academia at the start of the quarter.

I get the same lectures. The best though is when you find out that a professor who lectured against it actually uses it during his lectures.

[Drake]

Like others, I trust it for general info and getting up to speed on a topic, but I wouldn't use it as a source for anything professional or academic.

[Groundhog]

I trust it about as much as I trust the documentaries on the History Channel, meaning I trust that most of the major facts/details in an article are correct, but everything else is questionable.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You mean that women can't clap their breasts like seals?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I use it for stuff not critical. I would not expect good info on political or religious subjects, but if, say, I wanted to start reading Lois McMaster Bujold because everyone raves about the books, I would certainly trust Wikipedia to give me the correct order of the books so I know which ones to look for.

Same here. Though, having said that, for more "controversial" topics, I still tend to find it a good resource for a general overview and links. I can then do the rest of the research myself.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by whomario

Obviously i wouldn´t use it for professional purposes or for an important school paper, but for my own purposes i definitely use it a lot. Like said, in the very least it´s an excellent starting point.

Absolutely. A great starting point, with much of it true, factual, and verified. Still, I'd never actually cite it.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Depends on the subject matter and the level that people would tend to screw with the information. In doing casual reading on say, the Viking I expedition to Mars, I trust it. If I was doing reading on say George W. Bush, not so much.

I tend to agree, but still, I've found it's not hard to tell when a political/religious/controversial article on wikipedia is going off the rails: the wall of text increases and the rate of citations decreases. Kind of like FOFC.

[lungs]

I only use Conservapedia. At least they are free from bias.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by lungs

I only use Conservapedia. At least they are free from bias.

[General Mike]

About a 5 for me. I always preface any info I get there with "wikipedia states..."

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by molson

I said 9, though wiki is only an entertainment thing for me.

They "anybody can edit it" criticism is way overblown. It's really an amazing resource. Probably the 2nd best thing the Internet has accomplished, after porn.

Hey guys, check it out! I've found someone who's never heard of YouTube.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Sgran

Hey guys, check it out! I've found someone who's never heard of YouTube.

i'd put wikipedia over youtube....but it's close

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

They "anybody can edit it" criticism is way overblown. It's really an amazing resource. Probably the 2nd best thing the Internet has accomplished, after porn.

Email is first, then pron, then wikipedia, then streaming media (arguably already covered by pron).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

100% trust.

Last night after waking up at 3am, I found myself surfing the following entries to cure my insomnia from 3am-5am, not once doubting the content:

Nuuk
Kangeq
Paul Egede
University of Greenland
Air Greenland
Thule Airforce Base
Permissive Action Link
Nova
Accretion
Cataclysm
Pompeii
Bolinar Peninsula
SN 1572
Cassiopeia A
List of supernova remnants
Tunguska Event
Tunguska
Castle Bravo
Tsar Bomba
Novaya Zemlya
Mount Vesivius
Lake Cheko
Funen

I guess since I'm only looking to satisfy idle curiosity, a few small inaccuracies doesn't bother me enough to think about it.

I love getting in wikipedia chains where you just start looking stuff up. I find it best for fictional universes- like start with some small segment about the X-Men and you end up with something crazy that Marvel is doing. Or start with a Star Wars character and soon your reading about entire eons of Star Wars extended universe junk.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

can one of the doubters point out some inaccuracies so i can know that i shouldn't trust everything read there?

I'm not sure this is a legit request or not, but here's an example of just one propaganda war waged on wikipedia. It shows how small edits can really be used to change the meaning of passages:
Wikipedia | Deep Capture: exposing the crime of naked short selling

Or there's the story that someone posted on this board a while back where a college student made up a quote for a composer who died. Wikipedia editors caught it and got rid of it within hours but many papers picked it up and used it in publication.
Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries - The Irish Times - Wed, May 06, 2009
(Even funnier is that you could now add in the quote and source any paper that didn't print a retraction and claim he actually said it)

SI

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not sure this is a legit request or not, but here's an example of just one propaganda war waged on wikipedia. It shows how small edits can really be used to change the meaning of passages:
Wikipedia | Deep Capture: exposing the crime of naked short selling

Thanks - the request was legit.

Even in this example, if you look at the left column and the right column, are either false? Seems like for the most part - no. A lot of the edits by the 'hacker' are removals of information. So to answer the thread's original question, I would trust either column for the most part. (To the point where it would influence my financial investing decisions, no.)

Now, on a separate note, the question posed by the blogger: "Which version, be it the left or the right better reflects reality and serves readers (particularly journalists) seeking to form an opinion?" scares me. Journalists should not be using wikipedia as a primary information source. Shmucks like me? Fine. Journalists and academics, no way.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Thanks - the request was legit.

Even in this example, if you look at the left column and the right column, are either false? Seems like for the most part - no. A lot of the edits by the 'hacker' are removals of information. So to answer the thread's original question, I would trust either column for the most part. (To the point where it would influence my financial investing decisions, no.)

Now, on a separate note, the question posed by the blogger: "Which version, be it the left or the right better reflects reality and serves readers (particularly journalists) seeking to form an opinion?" scares me. Journalists should not be using wikipedia as a primary information source. Shmucks like me? Fine. Journalists and academics, no way.

But I think it's an excellent illustrative point. What has pretty much everyone agreed with? "I go there to get a basic idea about something". If you can control the jumping off point for people, then you can control how the argument is even framed. That renders individual facts moot. So, even if you are factually correct- if you're only including the facts that support your case and suppressing equally true and possibly more damaging facts, aren't you pretty much tainting an argument?

We see this "controlling the framing" all the time in politics. It reminds me of the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing. He actually did create the bill which funded the growth of the internet from small academic network to what we have today. His exact quote was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" which is completely true and has been backed up by all sorts of early internet figures. But if you can paint him as claiming "I invented the internet", then you can even have a Snickers commercial coming out making fun of him because a lot of people, for whatever reasons and motives they have, can't be bothered to actually examine facts.

And it's only getting worse now that people have more access to more "news" outlets of greater or lesser repute. Companies, who have much greater resources than all but a few individuals, realize that if you can just cloud an argument with enough half truths and unverifiable "facts", then you can make a simple argument much more complicated (see both sides of global warming, case for a public health care option, etc).

Furthermore, how many people are just saying "I go there for a basic idea about X" and then never do anything more? I know I'll sometimes go check the sources but a lot of times, I just assume it's probably correct. So, obviously there's that danger.

And where does it fall in the minds of the average "internet consumer"? If you have a middling newspaper (say, not the New York Times but the Albuquerque Journal) who discovers a factual inaccuracy, I bet most people would assume the newspaper was who got the story wrong and not mighty wikipedia. And those are the journalists we're talking about that are supposed to be the safeguard, correct? I bet more people trust wikipedia than them now anyways.

SI