Wikipedia (Annika Nielsen)

Wikipedia is indeed a good website to use when you are conducting a research project. I think Wikipedia can often be misunderstood because it can be edited by anybody. People are not aware that Wikipedia has thousands of volunteers. These volunteers are working constantly to make sure that Wikipedia is up to date with the latest information. With almost 3.5 million articles it leaves a really big room for error. But all the volunteers will help correct those mistakes and make it so the information is new and fresh to the Internet. Wikipedia is one of the top five sites and it is used by many. False information may be posted but in a short time it will be taken down. Wikipedia is often compared to Britannica. What people don't know is that Britannica averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article and 3.86 for Wikipedia. By only one error more than Britannica, Wikipedia is just as good of a resource. Wikipedia has a lot of responsibility making sure it is always perfectly maintained. Therefore with the huge responsibility comes help from all over the world making the responsibility for the creators minimized and the website to become a true helpful website for anyone to enjoy.

Wikipedia- Tyler

Would Wikipedia be a good source of information for school work or assignments? My answer personally would be no. Wikipedia is never a good source. It can be edited and changed by anyone and everyone. This is why it's bad. For example if someone opens up a Wikipedia page then anyone who opens it is able to just goof off and delete everything on the page. Or someone could come on and just put in false information intentionally or not or could intentionally just type random letters and cut out words on the document to confuse the reader. According to David Farhie"The facts are only as reliable as the sources". This quote means that the facts that the reader is reading aren't reliable. To determine if it is, you would have to talk with the person posting to figure out the source of his information if he has one and then would have to check the site to see if it is a site that can be trusted. Also since anyone can post the information they put up may not be true. The information they write may be true to them but in reality the information they are writing is false. On an average Wikipedia page there can be about 162 errors of false statements, opinions, spelling errors, and grammar mistakes. Wikipedia has about 3.82 errors per article. Some information may be true but it may be extremely difficult to point out the false and true on the page. Wikipedia is a place for facts but with human error and misjudgment it messes up everything making it so that wikipedia isn't "only a place for fact, but also half truths, exaggerations, and out-and-out disinformation". This quote hear again is according David Farhie. If it is something you know for sure and are just re-reading the subject because you like it then it may be possible for you to point out fallacies and facts but if it is a subject you are learning about and don't know much on then you will have trouble pointing out fact over fallacy. So this is why Wikipedia is a bad source and is a horrible place for a school assignment.

Wikipedia ( kaley)

Wikipedia is not a good resource when you are doing research. It’s not a good resource because Wikipedia has had reports of serious errors. There is 3.86 errors on Wikipedia per articles, such as general misunderstanding of vital concepts in articles. This website has nearly 3.5 million articles in more than one hundred twenty five languages that students should never use. Wikipedia also was built by thousands of random people, and they made the rules. You are not allowed to edit the text or state your opinion, but people do it anyway. When there is big news it's on Wikipedia in minutes. Some information or news is true, but a lot in fake. There are better site online for research.

Can you trust Wikipedia? Ben L.

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? Some people say that it is and they would defend it to the end, and other people would say no and would never use it. If you ask me I would use Wikipedia as a reliable source and would trust what is on the site. Wikipedia is a website that people from all over contribute to, to make it the best it can be. Wikipedia also has filter and rules so if you edit the website it has to be backed up somewhere else, or the edit will be fixed or removed from the site. Because of the filters Wikipedia provides and all the people contributing to it and making it a good source and I would actually recommend people to use it. Wikipedia has to be backed up by other reliable sources in multiple places. And it's not just information from other sites, It is physically cited in Wikipedia for it to be allowed on the site. Another reason Wikipedia is good is because it isn't biased. This means that nothing can be based on someone's opinion. It has to have a neutral view on the issue or fact. Over all Wikipedia has a strong and active community updating, monitoring, and editing the site all the time. All these things that people do to contribute to Wikipedia make it a good reliable site that I would use.

Wikipedia- Hayden

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? I say yes. If you look at the bottom of each paragraph there is a citation of where that info came from. So you can check that the information is true. If there is no citation then it doesn't get published. Plus there are so many people editing Wikipedia each minute that even if you got false information on Wikipedia, it would be changed within minutes. Nobody can edit the most viewed pages because they are perfect or very close to it and Wikipedia experts have locked editing to viewers. So that means nobody can edit the pages about Leonardo Da Vinci or Bill Gates or any other common page like that. In addition to this Britannica has 2.92 mistakes per article where Wikipedia has 3.86. Thats not even one more mistake per article. So why trust Britannia and not Wikipedia? And lastly to be publish on Wikipedia the information can't be biased. So each Wikipedia article has citations, few mistakes and it's not biased . This makes Wikipedia the biggest and best good source on the Internet.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a good source for information because there are to many dangerous things that can happen on it, in addition people around the world that may not even know what there talking about and try to give advice. For example,let's say I'm adult and I'm writing that book for people who don't know how to parent a kid and I didn't have any kids or any experience with them, so who am I to try and give advice? How do you know I can be trusted? How do you know I'm not a teenager pranking people and being stupid and giving false advice to people that really need help? You don't know.
Another reason Wikipedia can not be trusted is because vandalism is frequent on the site, meaning that people put false information, or write nasty and inappropriate comments. Once those comments are on there, there on there permanently, there is no one to delete the rude comments people submit.
I especially don't think that students should use Wikipedia because there are to many people posting false advice, making it very hard for students to use wiki sites for write- ups, projects, presentations.wikipedia can't be trusted.

The Reliability of Wikipedia-Adrienne

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.