Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever since I was 15 years old I have been in the habit of looking at Wikipedia. I am 28 now and must stop doing so. I read other books and know Wikipedia is very often wrong, but I can't break the habit of looking at the site often still. Just today I read on Wikipedia that the Syrian city of Damascus was on the Syrian coast and inhabited by Muslim Greeks on a page. And, two days ago a page said their where 15 million Druze in Lebanon. Anybody that knows anything about anything knows all this is false.
Does anyone else have the habit of regularly going to Wikipedia and taking it seriously sometimes?
I have to break this habit or it might make me dumber than I already am. The people that run that site have a lot of nerve asking for donations.
I remember all through High School and University the rule of thumb was you can start getting the basics of a topic with Wikipedia but never use it as a primary source by itself. I remember when it first became popular, lots of kids in my high school would contribute on random topics. Some would add actually real info and others would go out of their way to put jokes, false info, and all kinds of random stuff in. It's community led so anyone can do it and it's pretty easy to sneak anything in if it looks like it fits.
Overall I find Wikipedia to be pretty iffy; a lot of topics seem to always have an over abundance of incorrect info because of recent popularity in topics (you show a great example using Syria) and sides wanting to control the narrative. When most people search topics they don't know Wikipedia is the first one to come up so it's become the default place simply because of the web traffic and advertising.
But it's not all bad and I've been able to find good sources within Wikipedia. In the end it's all about checking and double checking your sources. In a lot of cases you'll get multiple kinds of info for one topic and sometimes the info will conflict with each other because humans conflict each other. It's part of research, you dig until you get a clear and whole picture.
One problem with Wikipedia is that it is more concerned with verifiability than the truth. They dismiss the truth as "original research".
The other problem is that certain pages get taken over by bullies who have nothing better to do than sit around all day, waiting for a page to be updated, and revert anything that they don't agree with, and report you for "edit warring". Most of us have better things to do, so we just throw up our hands and give up.
Wikipedia is probably the best general information site on the web. However, it's only as good as the people who contribute information to it.
Please share with us a general source of information on the internet that is more thorough.
This is pretty much my opinion of Wikipedia. I think I have only found one instance where I thought the information was incorrect. I have found it is the best first source of information on a topic. I'm often amazed at the depth of information on some topics.
I wonder if Wikipedia peaked in its accuracy and usefulness some years ago and now people who want to maintain confusion make sure it is incorrect in the way they want.
It is sometime interesting to look at the history of page changes and see information that was there 5 years ago but missing now.
Studies have been done and show Wikipedia is typically more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.
The only time I have a problem "trusting" it is when the topic is highly politicized. But for the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, that's a nonfactor.
One problem with Wikipedia is that it is more concerned with verifiability than the truth. They dismiss the truth as "original research".
The other problem is that certain pages get taken over by bullies who have nothing better to do than sit around all day, waiting for a page to be updated, and revert anything that they don't agree with, and report you for "edit warring". Most of us have better things to do, so we just throw up our hands and give up.
Yes, definitely.
This is my opinion and experience with Wikipedia. It's helpful for a casual reader wanting to learn some generalities about a said topic.
If you are one to go down rabbit holes (of your own interests) and try to share your own knowledge by editing pages, Wikipedia often shows a very ugly face. If you try to become an active or even occasional editor, this (mentioned above) crap gets in the way and makes it quite questionable as you dig deeper into a topic. The info there is slanted in certain ways as it is with other sources, so one must do lots of homework to verify certain details about a topic online.
Use it with caution is probably the best advice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
