I hear a lot of controversy about Wikipedia.

[ZapperZ]

whoa...so what's the probability of us finding an error in every article!?

pls help me answer...for someone who only knows basics, i think it has been quite informative...but i just hope it isn't feeding me with the wrong facts.

Afterall, if one of you all can identify the error n know the actual fact ...y not help wiki, which is being used by millions of people, correct these errors and let the love for knowledge spread on??

talk the talk and walk the walk!

Are you aware of what kind of an IMPOSSIBLE task that is? Besides, what happened to these "millions of people" who should be more discerning on where they get their information? Aren't you the least bit curious on the source of whatever you read?

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It has everything to do with what you do with a piece of "information" that you receive. Do you care on the credibility of the source? Do you actually check up on the validity of the information? Or do you just sit back and accept it as fact?

If you do the latter, then you deserve to be taken in and be duped, because no one can save you. There are many credible sources in physics. Just go to the APS website and look at all their recommended links. It is not my fault that someone decides to use unverified information.

Zz.

 

[bkvitha]

Are you aware of what kind of an IMPOSSIBLE task that is? Besides, what happened to these "millions of people" who should be more discerning on where they get their information? Aren't you the least bit curious on the source of whatever you read?

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It has everything to do with what you do with a piece of "information" that you receive. Do you care on the credibility of the source? Do you actually check up on the validity of the information? Or do you just sit back and accept it as fact?

If you do the latter, then you deserve to be taken in and be duped, because no one can save you. There are many credible sources in physics. Just go to the APS website and look at all their recommended links. It is not my fault that someone decides to use unverified information.

Zz.

for that i thank that there are sites like these(this forum i mean)...

thanks for your advice.

but the problem is still not really solved...most people do rely on wiki!and if it is really true that it can't be reliable...not many people are aware of that!

 

[Pythagorean]

for that i thank that there are sites like these(this forum i mean)...

thanks for your advice.

but the problem is still not really solved...most people do rely on wiki!and if it is really true that it can't be reliable...not many people are aware of that!

yeah, it sucks that it looks respectable, with references and messages about the bias of the author on some pages, and diagrams and pictures and good sentence structure. It makes it look like it's well moderated by professionals.

 

[bkvitha]

but what about "this article is a stub" blah blah bla...they do admit that there are articles which are not really accurate(quite a lot of them actually).
so...why do they not say other articles (as you have mentioned) for not being accurate...we can report to their moderators, right!?

!??!

 

[oksanav]

Wikipedia can be good when looking for random hard to find things or definitions.. like history stuff. Or sometimes for a quick look at well known science facts that I could get at a hundred sites, it just shows up first. But I wouldn't use it beyond that. It's too catty. It's scary too, like ppl have mentioned, on how it looks so legit, because I used it many times (not for anything important though) before realizing it was "user made." I get annoyed when I can only find gossipy stuff about say, Abraham Lincoln, like "was he gay". And this one apparently well done article had a random line in the middle,something like "I'm going to eat you next". That ruined the only wikipedia thing for me.
But it doesn't really matter anyways, because isn't the rule of thumb to always use more than one source? I had a Geology teacher who had you do these projects, and the grading basically came down to how many souces you used, and how often you credited them.

 

[Pythagorean]

Wikipedia can be good when looking for random hard to find things or definitions.

I especially like it for learning about things that I never new existed. Than I have substance and I can research the accuracy of the subject further, I learn key terms to use for card catalogue and google searches.

I don't think you should ever use just once source no matter what that source is. Since the professional community in general doesn't accept wikipedia, it's worthless citing it, but it's awesome for exploration.