Do you think Wikipedia is credible?

Wikipedia is the @$$hole of human thought, it is the diarrhea of every febel mind. Should you choose to validate a Yahoo answer, please enlighten us all, with a credible responce. Knowledge is power, choose not to be powerless, before you choose to type. Wikipedia = Truth?!

No I mean there are some things on wikipedia that are correct but over all no if you go on there to look up something for information and you know nothing on the topic than you have no clue if it is actually true what they are saying or if some Joe from down in the basement went on there and thought it would be funny to put complete **** on there. So no I don't think it is a credible site. I mean when I do research papers my teachers refuse to accept wikipedia as a credible source because just anyone can just go on there and change the true information.

You weren't looking for an answer--you were looking for someone to agree with you. Report It

Actually, I was looking for opinions & how different people felt about the site. What I wasn't looking for was a smart @$$ comment. I think I made you mad by not making your answer best. Report It

Someone cheesed you off today?

I love wikipedia. I rarely see anything that is false there.

It depends on the person entering the info.

its a good source but u can check snopes to be sure

wikipedia is most def not credible. Wiki means changeable so the answers on the site are open to the public to change.

I do not think it is very credible, although some articles might be.
The reason why schools do not let their students use Wikipedia as a resource is because anyone that has an account can change an article on Wikipedia.

Yes. I do believe and I have found the informations to be true. I think you should believe. :-)

I have definitely found mounds of credible information on Wikipedia. One recommendation I have, however, is take a look at the references/external links to verify that the sources are credible as well. If its not, do your part and make a page edit...its the way Wikipedia was built.

nope. i hate it when someone copies a huge long-asssed answer, and then gets "best answer". like the person couldn't look that crap up?! i write my own answers, and write them from my head.

No more credible than anyone or anything else. Wiki can be BS, but someone you know can tell you BS, and a book can be full of BS. So i guess everything is just BS! I think some stuff is accurate but not credible. Sometimes I visit wiki for information.

Hahah. That is pretty funny I must admit. Well, I'd say it's credible. Many of my school projects depended on it, and many teachers found it quite credible, or so it appears.

Is it all truth? No. Sometimes admins don't realize when someone writes that whales fly over antartica.

No.

I feel your pain. Imagine people using Wikipedia as a cite in an academic setting!! People in my class do this and it drives me nuts! I really wish the professor would point out this is not a credible source and that they will not be taken seriously if this is the best thing they could come up with to substantiate their position.

It is as credible as this site

ive been farly impressed with wikipedia... but then what use it for is pretty basic stuff.. wouldnt want to write a term paper or anthing with that as a sorce

it is incredible. infact you can imagine the imagination of wiki... wiki is totally different to yahoo!
i believe, in life you dont need any comparision, and if you do, then do with similar things...
for eg: you cant compare a tea with a coffee, compare a black tea with normal tea....
funda of life:
dont think whats right , whats wrong,
enjoy each n everything you do from bottom of your heart!

It is not credible. My teachers have always told me to not use it because anyone could change the information.

I have found lots of valid info there, however I often question the validity on some of the other stuff.

I think if you are looking up something just to "get the 'jist" of it, then wikipedia is okay, but for research and real answers, then no.

Wikipedia is not the only source I use for information. When I (personally) am looking something up, I look at many places to see if the information I'm getting from one concurs with others.

I generally quote Wikipedia because I've found that they have good creatable information that concurs with most of what I've studied, and it is easy to navigate through their web site. Not to mention that, in most cases, it is the first (free) site I come to in a search.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
As such its a great tool for finding information on any topic.
Encyclopedias are not the end of knowledge. They are a good starting point however, if you are interested in finding information on a certain topic.

Oh, and who pissed in your corn flakes this morning?

Ok. Lets consider this for a moment.

Knowledge is a distilled summary of human experience. The more humans involved in gathering that knowledge, the more accurate it generally becomes.

Wiki as a concept is community-based knowledge. If you see something is incorrect, you can change it. Wikipedia is many people cooperating on creating a body of knowledge. I know some active Wikipedia committers and they are smart people.

What this means is that if you view a wikipedia article that has a lot of authors it can generally be taken to be credible, assuming its not a contentious issue. Contention and dissent is dealt with in the discussions associated with an article. Wikipedia has as its goal a search for truth and correctness, this is a good ideal and worth trusting.

It's worth checking the references, and checking the discussions if the article has any. Wikipedia's standards are extremely high, and although its true that wiki allows anyone to change anything, that doesn't mean it will be inaccurate.

If you doubt a particular fact you can always find out who wrote that piece and ask them personally too.

A teacher who says not to trust Wikipedia really doesn't understand the concept.

Honestly, there have been studies where Wikipedia has been compared to print encyclopedias and proven to be just as credible (with the bonus of not being outdated).

As a librarian, I use Wikipedia a handful of times, not as a reference to answer people's questions, but as a way for me to quickly familiarize myself with an overview of a topic I'm trying to help someone search. Once I have an idea of what I'm searching, I can twist wordings around in my mind to find related topics and the ilk; making it easier for me to find relevant items for patrons.

I'd never use it as a source cited on a paper, however, I would use it as a starting point to give me ideas.

The links below are only part of the article. I have the rest of them on my computer.

As JK pointed out, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This means that a properly written Wikipedia article is as accurate as its sources.

Encyclopedias are not supposed to have any original thought in them--no new ideas. They are simply a compilation of knowledge.

Wikipedia's source is the Internet.

A Wikipedia article follows the same rules regarding references as most written compositions. Common knowledge does not need to be referenced. Everything else does need to be referenced.

This means that anything written in Wikipedia that is not referenced should be easily found on multiple reputable web sites.

You should never have to reference Wikipedia because all of the information on Wikipedia is supposed to be on a reputable web site elsewhere on the Internet.

Quoting Wikipedia would be like quoting your grandmother on the Big Bang Theory because she read a Stephen Hawking book. No, you'd quote Stephen Hawking, but your grandmother points you in the right direction.

Depending on the topics it can or cannot be credible. You can look at the sources and sites they place at the bottom of the pages to see if its valid. Normally, articles on Pop culture and famous people are bias and therefore more likely to not be as credible as historical events and people.
I use it and I have found some errors in it but like I said, it was with Pop culture.