Why does everyone say that Wikipedia is all garbage? It has real facts...?

People (usually journalists who obviously don't know what they are talking about) compare it to an imaginary perfect source of information written by omniscient gods. Those people seem to forget that NO single source of information is completely reliable, and any encyclopaedia the size of wikipedia is bound to contain a few mistakes. In traditional sources of information (print encyclopaedias, books, academic journals etc.) errors often arise, simply because the writers are human (and sometimes biased) and not everything is noticed by the proofreaders.

On wikipedia misinformation can be added in seconds, but it can be corrected even more quickly; there are mechanisms for dealing with disputes, for blocking users who cause trouble and for protecting the content of articles. IT IS NOT A FREE-FOR-ALL; all claims need a reference and articles reflect the consensus of of editors who know about the topic in question: people who add silliness get blocked very quickly (after they get blocked they sometimes start blogs complaining about how awful wikipedia is). Even if it were a free-for-all, there is a far greater number of competent editors who check each revision made and correct errors than of uninformed idiots typing nonsense.

According to a study in Nature magazine, there were only 33% more errors in wikipedia science articles than on articles on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website.

With Wikipedia, anyone can modify those "facts".

Some of the information is true, but any bozo can log on and enter something, and it's not really verified, so you can't completely trust it.

Because anyone can update the information without really knowing what they are talking about. Wiki is usually pretty fast about removing bogus "facts", but still, some info might sound real and take more time to verify.

Lol. I just answered your question about the Korean army.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia

South Korean men over the age of 18, including foreign citizens of Korean descent, are subject to compulsory military service. A dual national may not be allowed to abandon his Republic of Korea nationality until he finishes his military service, or has received a special exemption from military service. In some cases, men of South Korean descent visiting from overseas have been forcibly drafted upon visiting the country, despite having never been there before and not having Korean citizenship.[1]

The opposite of what I told you....x

Who is right me or Wikipedia? I'm guessing you need to see a lawyer. lolol x

You can edit entries but you must realize that there is a whole staff of moderators and adminstrators to monitor all changes made on the site.

Just read the content with a grain of salt, and makes sure that it backs up facts and statistics with citations from credible sources.

because people rite it

Wikipedia is very educational and informative.
The only untrue thing I've spotted so far is a statement about Lil Romeo performing bj on men.

people say that wikipedia is trash because its most famed trait is that "you can edit the information with the click of a button".

its a good starting point if you want to know about something, but try and look for other resources to verify what wikipedia says. we're lucky that wikipedia still has mostly truthful and reliable facts, but it takes just one person to make a completely accurate article completely false.

One of my problems with Wikipedia is writing about small communities - there is simply no way to cite some of the information, and when something isn't cited, it usually ends up deleted.

I come from a very small community where folklore and myths are an essential part of growing up. When I went to write the Wikipedia about it, a lot of it kept getting deleted because I couldn't cite it.

But alas, I think Wikipedia is a good place to get started on research - but in no way should it ever used as the only source on a paper.

Think of it this way.

Imagine the postings on Wikipedia being like a big free banquet of food. You are familiar with some but not all dishes of the banquet. Of the dishes you know, 20% turns out to be spoiled From this, you decide that the food you are not familiar with is probably 20% spoiled as well.

Would you eat unfamiliar foods at such a banquet? Statistically, you would get food poisioning from only 1 bite out of five.

Unless starving, most people would consider the banquet inedible.