View Poll Results :How reliable is Wikipedia?
Always right. 2 7.14%
Right more often than wrong. 23 82.14%
Wrong more often than right. 3 10.71%
Always wrong. 0 0%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

December 15th, 2005  

Topic: Wikipedia

How realiable do you believe Wikipedia to be?

I personally find it to be very reliable, I used to make sure ti find another source but when Wikipedia kept working out for me I decided that there was no need to double check the figures.
December 15th, 2005  
More often than not right. But I don't take it to be gospel. Like most stuff on the net, check your sources more than once unless it comes from a sight like for example.
December 15th, 2005  
Aye, what he said. You have to remember that ANYONE can post up anything to Wiki, you have to check the sources. Just to prove this some months back I submitted a completely bogus article about China claiming to have invented white people. It was up for two months before I sent email retracting it. Funny thing that.
December 15th, 2005  
Right more often than wrong.
December 15th, 2005  
Right more often than wrong, but I always check alternative sources as backup if it is a question of important information needed.
December 15th, 2005  

Speak of the devil eh?
December 15th, 2005  

Right more often than wrong. I recently found a minor error in searching for an answer to a World War II Trivia question posted by Cooler King on the first use of napalm in World War II. I used the answer provided by Wikipedia which was July 22, 1944 @ Tinian. I found out that it was first used in France on July 17, 1944. I then went to Wikipedia and edited the entry with the correct date and posted the source of the information. Thus I believe the system does work.
December 17th, 2005  

The System works ....... It's Right more often than wrong ....... and a reliable Source

I like too It uses Wikipedia and as many sources as it can to Find the answer
December 17th, 2005  
Yes but don't try to use it as a source with any university papers, its still not accepted by any I have had dealings with.

Doody, or any of our uni students, have a different experience with this?
December 17th, 2005  

Source:BBC News

Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.