Wikipedia!

Should Wikipedia be concidered as fact?

I think it should not because it has an edit function. Than that means I can go in and edit the text and make it read what I want it to read! What makes it so that people are not doing that to "win" in these arguments about ufos, ets, bigfoot, crop circles, unexplaind, disinfo, scepicisum, ect.? I see many times where people on this site and other sites use wikipedia as "solid proof" and expect people to cower to their every beck and call. Heck I catch myself refering to wikipedia to. And I had no idea the edit function was their. Thats why I am making this thread so I can get your ideas on this matter!

I don't ever use wikipedia as an example of "solid proof" of anything. However, I do use it when someone wants to know what a certain thing is. Like, for example:

What is the definition of:

or

What does a group believe

I don't ever use it it as "proof" that something is indeed a fact. It is more of a tool to me than a "fact" carrier.

It is well-known that wiki is limited when it comes to reliable information due to the very fact that entries are open to editing. However, if you want to find out if something is true it is always a good idea to find supporting evidence from a few sources as opposed to just one.

I was able to add an interesting historical fact on my local railway station which can't be found on the internet otherwise. So editing can be a good thing. Even if it's only myself who knows that it's true.

The edit button for Wikipedia is solely designed for the case of additional information. Perhaps an individual comes across some information that he/she forgot to put in the article initially and such. Also, with some things the issue is constantly changing so there is a need to be able to update.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I don't ever use wikipedia as an example of "solid proof" of anything. However, I do use it when someone wants to know what a certain thing is. Like, for example:

What is the definition of:

or

What does a group believe

I don't ever use it it as "proof" that something is indeed a fact. It is more of a tool to me than a "fact" carrier.

but you do refer to it to get knowledge to or use as knowledge for something to make a point? right? even for definitions of words or religiouse believes they all can be edited by the person using them to "win" an argument. If you use it for a definition then that means you are using that for a fact. I am not trying to say you do it. I am saying that maybe someone else before you edited it and what you are looking at on Wikipeda is what some one else edit and put their own definition to what the searcher is looking at. I just think that it is weird that the site lets anyone edit what some people might think or even take as true.

The vast majority of information in the wikipedia is a collection of information from a number of sources that most regard as fact simply because its been printed in a book or signed by some significant researcher.

A quick example of this Finnish Civil War (currently on the wikipedias front page) is an example or a heavily researched and and well done article of fact, everything significant has been cited and noted at the bottom of the article.

And heres an example of a questionable article Tim Eyman, I used the random article button to find it, but as you can see its clearly marked that it may not be entirely neutral and not all if its information may be notable.

For the vast majority of information its all clearly marked, you cant simply jump in and edit it to see fit as you'll quickly be banned and the article fixed and for the less patrolled articles there non-important articles on the likes of places like ATS, not so famous people or small towns etc where most of the information is from the locals and in most cases cant be noted or cited etc.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Edn]

en.wikipedia.org...

I edited this page see if you can see where i edited it?

ok I see they dont let you use the edited version. If a mod want to erase this it is ok to me.

Personally I like wikipedia, and do tend to use it to get an idea of a subject that I don't quite understand. I haven't used it as proof as of yet, but don't feel there is a problem doing so, as long it isn't tagged that there is a dispute of information or the information is being investigated further.

I think I only seen one of those type of tags. They may have changed them by now.

As far as editing and adding information, sit down and really read the rules. They are tough. They have strict guidelines even for disputed material. They just don't let anyone moderate or materials and disputes.

One thing I really like about many of their articles though is that it gives various aspects and points of view of a subject and not just one point of view. The articles I have read and know alittle about have been right.

They are awsome for movie spoliers.

I'm sure since I have read the rules last year, they have improved upon them, and made changes where necessary. They seem to be able to create a living encyolpeida very well letting people add to the knowledge already given as well as keeping it the most accurate as possible.

They are making a name for themselves. That is for sure.

I think wikipedia is accurate about 80% of the time, which is better than can be said for some books.