Do you trust Wikipedia as a source?

[Faust03]

I remember one of my friends in high school edited an article there to say something stupid, I forget what the article was and what the edit said though because it got changed back

 

[moonbits]

Not in political/historical events but in terms of science, concepts, nature and all those topics I trust it.

 

[Faust03]

I think I also remember replacing a picture of obama or some other politician with k.rool, it is super easy to edit this stuff lmao

 

[jon2]

I look at Wikipedia to look for sources and compare them

 

[PrismRed]

Pretty neutral, but my rule of thumb is always try to search from other sources as well and make our own conclusion about it.

 

[Stookymalarkey]

It depends. If the article is political and the admins are biased one way, they'll make sure that any edits that would make it more balanced are removed and prevent anyone they don't agree with them from posting. I believe that Wikipedia isn't as neutral as they like to appear and has no real mechanism for reporting unreasonable actions taken by the admins. Overall, I don't feel comfortable using them as the sole source of online information and encourage others to look at other sources as well.

 

[dropsmegamega]

Honestly? Wikipedia is much more like common sense than actually scientific.

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

I have seen how they have changed some articles to fit whatever narrative they want to push, I have also seen how they ask for money, but they are already cover by other corporations/millionaries (they sent that money to other stuff that they like).

So no, but there is no such thing as full neutral and 100% true source, specially in these times. However wikipedia can be used like any other source platform: to learn and crossreference information. Should always try to get more than one information about a topic and process it yourself.

 

[Boog111]

It's useful to get general information. I use it at work when I have to look up medical conditions I've never heard of. It might not be the best information but its a place to start.

 

[χKai]

The mandela effect has taken it's toll..

 

[Bluewyne]

Not as an academic source, but I trust it enough for casual use.

 

[Necrodyte95]

Wikipedia is pretty reliable until it comes to constroversial subjects.

 

[Retro Doomer]

It's a 50/50 for me on Wikipedia. I think for basic information, it should be okay, but for more complicated topics especially concerning modern events and issues I wouldn't fully trust Wikipedia. After all, there is no completely neutral source, as every piece of information is created by humans, who are inherently biased. However, I believe that reading books from different authors on certain topics should be sufficient, rather than relying solely on Wikipedia as the sole source of information.

 

[Dyne]

Wikipedia is pretty reliable until it comes to constroversial subjects.

I believe this is the correct answer.

 

[fmsynthetic]

It's only as impartial, objective, and rigorous as the mainstream media and academic sources it views as sacrosanct.

 

[trickybus]

Wikipedia isn't a source; never was, never will be. It is an information aggregator, meaning that the point of the website is to gather information in a central. easily accessible location for the sake of convenience.

The people who contribute to the site are the ones who have access to the source materials (or rather, are supposed to) e.g. books, newspapers, scientific study papers, video & audio sources, photographs, diaries, etc etc. Primary sources of information will always trump everything else, especially aggregation sites.

The reason Wikipedia got the reputation it has is because college and high school students couldn't be arsed to do their own research and used Wikipedia as a low-quality substitute. The important links in a Wiki page are the citations: if the citations aren't quality source material, neither is the article.

 

[bigstinkie]

I think I also remember replacing a picture of obama or some other politician with k.rool, it is super easy to edit this stuff lmao

i remember a friend of mine would edit popular wikipedia pages, screenshot the newly edited page, then revert the change afterwards citing that it was an accident
so he could post an image of a wikipedia article claiming italians were cyborgs

 

[Dyne]

claiming italians were cyborgs

They're not?

 

[χKai]

He'd go to his state's Wikipedia page and change the territorial extension by a few kilometers each day just to see if anyone would notice.

They did... After it started invading two neighboring states by sheer size XD

I can't get over how funny this is.

 

[bigstinkie]

They're not?

i have watched the sopranos and they certainly did not appear to exhibit any cyborglike behaviours

 

[Dyne]

i have watched the sopranos and they certainly did not appear to exhibit any cyborglike behaviours

Good point.

 

[Your_Homie_Gale]

If I can source all the sources for my source page that lists sources then it is a reliable source. At least for providing sources that you can source from.

 

[SpcDaicon]

Its funny to see how people perception on Wikipedia changed over the years. I'm old enough to remember when people trusted Wikipedia with their life and took what as written there as gospel.

After some time people started to not trust it anymore. Maybe after the novelty wore off people got more critical since many articles (especially on more niche topics) had little to no sources.

Nowadays Wikipedia looks way more well moderated and is way more reliable than IA slop we have now.

Do I trust them? Yeah but always take them with a grain of salt and always look for a more reliable source: acadamic sources and books.

 

[VampireLord1024VampireLord1024's icon]

No, I don't trust it.

 

[MrPanda61]

First of all, which in which language? I've found English Wikipedia to be quite reliable, while the Italian one not so much.

Second, on which subjects? Things might vary quite a lot according to the nature of the matter. Recent events and highly debated topics are prone to rewrites.

In my experience, Wikipedia is a good starting point for further readings. The sources come from respected journals most of the time.