Do you think wikipedia is a credible source of information?

People on here cite wiki as the source of their answer all the time. Does citing wiki give there answer strength or detract from its credibility

the academic community wont accept it

But if you Yahouligans say its credible it must be...right...oh yeah YA! is full of idiots I just wasnt aware of the vast quantiy

When I attended college the first source my Professor said not to trust is wikipedia. It is an open source of info allowing anyone to enter facts, delete facts, and enter information without citing where the info came from.

its a hell of a lot better then this site

Wiki is great, they really know what they're doing.

of course, it has saved my *** on too many times to count when doing assignments when I cant find any other information on the internet

Yes.

Wikipedia is sourced by the public, and absolutely anyone can edit the contents.

Because of that, I find it to be a good source. Even if one person should maliciously try to provide false info, there are thousands more ready to provide accurate information, and correct any false statements.

I have never come across a statement or fact on wikipedia which was blatantly a lie, or wrong, without a credible source.
(which would also, therefor, have provided a wrong answer)

Wikipedia can actually be edited by anyone on the internet, so I say if I couldn't use wiki on any of my reports for school, I don't think that it's a credible source.

=)

Either or. Though, I'd say wikipedia is more credible than getting an answer from Y!A. You just go into it taking the responses with a grain of salt.

i thought it was a credible source but since joining "answers" i have read it is a bunch of (blank) and shouldn't be trusted. i feel like a jerk because i have been relying on it myself.

Its great source of information, but reliability is not guaranteed, No

Most of the time information on Wikipedia is correct. Nowdays even universities and colleges accept citings from Wikipedia.

I wouldn't argue that wikipedia is a credible source, and I wouldn't list it as a source in an essay I was writing. However, it still beats almost any other non-reliable source. I mean, wikipedia is definitely more accurate than Yahoo Answers, or what your friend told you, or some other unreliable source.

well not really, since anyone can edit it, but it is reliable enough to get your answers, but not for big answers that there are still 0n-going debates on them!

generally, when I consult wikipaedia I can get a feel of the accuracy of the entry. The fact they are 99% correct, and the fact they encourage input from the web-public impresses me. Certainly, were wiki to have a question and answer forum, I would be there instaed of here.

Checking a source which specialises in a subject is invariably better than Wikipedia. Wiki is OK for general quick look-ups but has a lot of inaccuracies when you get into detail.

Wiki Is THe Best Place for information it has been very useful to a lot of people trust me

Wikipedia could be edited by anyone on the internet so you have to be careful when using it. I have found a lot of the information i have used from it to be accurate but at the same time I have heard stories where people have posted false information. So you really have to be careful.

I would recommend that no one rely only on that site alone unless it is all you have to go on.

Anyone can update the information on wikipedia. I mean, for general knowledge, wikipedia isn't a bad source, usually it's fairly accurate, but just because the people who write things on wikipedia and source them, doesn't make what they're writing true, sometimes the sources aren't legit. I definitely wouldn't trust wikipedia for writing something for school, for example, but for general knowledge about something, I would say yes it is usually fairly credible.
Citing something on here from wikipedia, just pisses me off, cause them obviously the person who asked the question could have just as easily typed in a search on wikipedia rather than wasting peoples time on unnecessary questions.. haaa I shouldn't have gotten myself started on that one. Hope this helps. :)

For one thing Wikipedia is the number one site for accurate infomation on almost any subject. If the data is unverified it says so. So the information that is verified is as good as gospel. Unverified information is unvariably removed as soon as it's discovered to be untrue.

their is rarely information on wikipedia that is 100% falce.

but it is often badly worded and hard to understand, due to lots of people editing different sections, all with a adifferent style of writing.

also... most of the time if someone asks a question, the chances are that they have already read the wikipedia answer, and not found it usefull.

it does strenthen their answer, and if their answer is good, then their isnt a problem. but it is lazy to copy and paste articles from the wiki. and most of the time not very usefull

I think wiki is fairly reliable. It's at least a good place to start especially since good topic writers will list bibliographies for their information.

Hello
Your answer are yes and no both together.
No for, after every body add details about eveything, there is a period to check those information by the website manager,but your answer is yes because after a short time wrong answers will delete.

Read to understand more in this regard:
Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.

There is no need to worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed (see Researching with Wikipedia for more details). However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.


Tschus

Yes, the same reasons that the "academic community" (i.e. your teacher) believe that Wikipedia is a poor source of information make it a great and credible resource: anyone can edit it. That way, thousands of people peer review each and every article, and each has the opportunity to edit the article or report for a number of reasons, including not citing sources, obscenity, or misinformation.

Well if the text is really literate and stuff it's probably legit. People don't usually go through the trouble of writing full pages of false information with correct grammar and capalization