I believe Wikipedia is a credible source, and can be cited. In a study by Nature, articles on the same topics were taken from Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and compared side-by-side for errors by experts on those topics. In total, there was an average of ~3 mistakes per Brittanica article , and ~4 per Wikipedia article, though the experts told researchers that either source is as reliable as the other.
Also, I believe the more scientific or mathematical articles on Wikipedia are more accurate and in-depth than other places on the Web, because so many people from different points of view can review and supplement the article. And if some hooligan decides to mess around with the article, somebody will come along and fix the errors soon enough. Most of the more professional articles are trustworthy because of this.
It also depends on the article itself. Is it thorough and well-written? Or are there several grammatical errors? You should use your own judgment in whether or not to trust Wikipedia. And even if you don't trust the article, you can still find other sites that might have the information you need in the "References" section near the bottom of the page. It's all a matter of rational perception. And besides, just because some articles on the site are questionable doesn't mean you should totally reject it as a resource.
The reliability of Wikipedia is debatable, but I believe for the most part that it is trustworthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment