• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Wikipedia

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrhiyuck

curious
Recently I was in a class, and the teacher said that we should not use wikipedia at all. I was thinking about this. I understand that wikipedia is useless on controversial subjects (why it's not allowed in the debate forum) or recent topics due to many changing them. But is it really as inaccurate as some say?

This leads me to think about other sources of information. Are they really generally more accurate? Are sources produced by only a select few more accurate then large amounts of wikipedia users? I see the effort to avoid incorrect information by using other sources, but it seems that the same general effort to avoid inaccurate information is used by many on wikipedia. So is it really that different?

I guess the main question is, "Is wikipedia, information from a large group, generally less accurate then information from smaller groups?" Think about this before you reply. While in cases that may be true (almost indefinitely on new or controversial subjects), is this a safe bias?

Reply...
 
B

Bobtron

ERR:SYNTAX
I say it's alright. I use it to look up information about songs, bands, games, and it all seems pretty accurate to me…
 
A

Atoyont

Brains for brawn
I read somewhere (I think that someone was arguing with Babylon how Wikipedia was about as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica) that yes, Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate. However, there are some people who like to edit the pages to make them humorous. Plus it's not as specific as some things are, which is why Wikipedia's resources are good for starting a search on a topic (see the citations), but not good as an actual source.
 
Misfit_PM

Misfit_PM

Wandering
The best way(and only good way to use wiki in my opinion) is to look at where they got there info(the sites at the bottum) and get the info from there. You have NO idea what some one could have done to the info on it's way to wiki, so, play it's safe, and check out their sources!

That is, if you are doing work there. If you are just checking something out, or getting the gist of things, go ahead, feel free, by all means, GO!

Wiki is not 100% accurate!(sometimes it isn't even 50% accuate, but that's not my point...) But general info is usualy good.
 
H

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
I usually use Wiki to get a summary of what I'm talking about, then use other web-sites when I get more specific. They tend to take down bogus articles (like the one a kid in my class wrote about Kevin Federline), but there's still some bias on the part of the authors. Wikipedia does try to find that and make a note of it when that's the case, though. But it's generally not specific enough to use by itself when it comes to a project.
 
T

The_Panda

恭喜發財
I personally encourage and support the use of possibly multiple scholarly articles that have undergone the process of peer review as they are much more likely to be reliable. Wikipedia often sources from these articles and I admire the creators of Wikipedia for their endeavor: I confess I have spent hours before reading through things that interest me. However while it's a good source of more casual information, I don't think it's a good source to draw upon in a debate as its information is volatile and possibly inaccurate. It's useful if you want to draw upon its citations, but still be careful that such citations aren't misquotes. Also NEVER use anything that has some sort of warning of verification, validity or bias: unfortunately though not every page that has these things is flagged.
 
P

Putty

hatin'
as long as you use the referencing at the bottom of the page and know where the info is coming from, wikipedia is one of the greatest inventions of the internet.
 
H

Hejiru

Rev up those fryers
It bothers me when people say Wikipedia is an unreliable source. It is well on its way to containing all human knowledge. Have you SEEN how many pages in detail on every imaginable subject?
People think that because anyone can edit it, its unreliable. This is not true, because if the Wiki people decet a change, they check it, and if its vandalizism, it's switched back within a few hours.
 
P

Putty

hatin'
Jigglychu said:
It bothers me when people say Wikipedia is an unreliable source. It is well on its way to containing all human knowledge. Have you SEEN how many pages in detail on every imaginable subject?
People think that because anyone can edit it, its unreliable. This is not true, because if the Wiki people decet a change, they check it, and if its vandalizism, it's switched back within a few hours.
Click to expand...
few hours? it's usually sorted out within the minute. they've got some team of mods that hate sunlight and are sharp on the PC.
 
D

DGCatAniSiri

Charmingly Cynical
The problem with the hide-bound encyclopedias is that by the time that they get published, they're already out of date. Wikipedia, being entirely on line, is capable of being updated instantly.

It seems to me that Wikipedia should be classified as a legitimate resource like any other, since most of the topics you can trust to be at least mostly true. Now, yeah, there are the jokers who will change the destination of links, but for the most part, it seems there is an unwritten rule to Wiki that you don't mess with it and fix any errors you find.

That's not to say that it should be a sole resource, but it is a valid and legitimate one as far as I'm concerned.
 
C

CyanFox27

Member
I use the links at the bottom of Wikipedia articles as byways to more legitimate (according to my professors) sites when it comes to actual school projects. If I was found quoting anything off of the site in itself as fact, I would be penalized. Still, despite its inaccuracies, I don't think it's a bad site, just one I'd never use for serious research.
 
R

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
mrhiyuck said:
Recently I was in a class, and the teacher said that we should not use wikipedia at all. I was thinking about this. I understand that wikipedia is useless on controversial subjects (why it's not allowed in the debate forum) or recent topics due to many changing them. But is it really as inaccurate as some say?
Click to expand...

The reason your teacher doesn't want you to use it is because it can't be cited as a source. As anyone can edit it, what it says can be completely different or non-existant when someone goes to check on the source.

Also, encyclopedias (real books OR Wikipedia) are never to be used as sources on academic papers. They are good starting points, and you should use the sources that they cite. But they themselves are not a source for an academic paper.

It doesn't matter if the topic is controversial. Articles from making home-made butter to Barack Obama can change in a matter of minutes, thus invalidating a source claim.
 
M

mew801

Well-Known Member
I normally use wikipedia, but i will always find another site which has the same info to make sure that it hasn't been edited, but it is generally good for quick info and dates of things. i do think its a bit silly that anyone can edit it though.
my teachers also say that we shouldn't use wikipedia, i think its because its a really easy way to get info lol.
 
R

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
mew801 said:
my teachers also say that we shouldn't use wikipedia, i think its because its a really easy way to get info lol.
Click to expand...

No, it's because encyclopedias are reference points for info, rather than an academic source. In addition, Wikipedia can be changed by anyone so what you cited as a source may no longer exist when someone goes to check it.
 
HoennMaster

HoennMaster

Well-Known Member
It really depends on what your using it for. If it is for new anime titles such as Pokemon, then don't immediately trust it. However I do use if for projects often. I just make sure that the info is sourced and I check out the source.
 
R

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
HoennMaster said:
It really depends on what your using it for. If it is for new anime titles such as Pokemon, then don't immediately trust it. However I do use if for projects often. I just make sure that the info is sourced and I check out the source.
Click to expand...

So for television it's no good, but academic researc a-okay?

Seems a bit backwards.
 
D

Dr. MECha

Prof. of Pokeology
randomspot555 said:
The reason your teacher doesn't want you to use it is because it can't be cited as a source. As anyone can edit it, what it says can be completely different or non-existant when someone goes to check on the source.

Also, encyclopedias (real books OR Wikipedia) are never to be used as sources on academic papers. They are good starting points, and you should use the sources that they cite. But they themselves are not a source for an academic paper.

It doesn't matter if the topic is controversial. Articles from making home-made butter to Barack Obama can change in a matter of minutes, thus invalidating a source claim.
Click to expand...
That's the whole reason why Serebii don't want us to use Wikipedia in debates like this. Encyclopedias are there to give you a general idea on the topic on the whole and shouldn't be treated as an article made by a certified expert or a well known journalist. They should be treated as study, a guideline if you will, that help you prepare for the difficult tests, and projects.

If you're doing an article based on a subject, then base it on an already made one by an individual, like a Professor or a Journalist. Don't get it from a chimera that collect facts that may be either logical or emotional. Also, if you do plan to use wikipedia, use the sources it use to make it's article instead. I hope that make your assignment much easier than before.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top