Wikipedia : To trust or not to

Source : http://infunity.info/component/conte...or-not-to.html

When Wikipedia started gaining in popularity, so did its diversion from actual content. Its Wiki style management means user can edit its content; this remains to be Wikipedia biggest boon and bane. Among the anonymous edits to Wikipedia, it was discovered that Republicans changed the "occupation of Iraq" to "Iraq's liberation". While this might not affect you, other information might: Information you use in your presentations, assignments, claims, etc might cause a hint of bother.

So that that leaves one in two minds about Wikipedia, to trust or not to trust.

My Verdict: Mostly changes on Wikipedia are politically motivated, so don't trust articles that can be politically linked. For homework and assignments one can use Wikipedia, especially for technical topics like science and technolgy. And lastly, don't ever use information from articles that state citation needed.

In conclusion,I trust Wikipedia[Citation needed]

[abhijangda]

I think wikipedia is trustworthy. Most of the contents are right.
I have been using wikipedia to read online articles for many years

[sakumar79]

Any content on the web in general should be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way you can verify the source.

Arun

[huntluck]

Well let me tell you It's the only online encyclopedia on the internet allowing for viewing the vast information of all existing things on planet....

Ask yourself Are you able to make out without Wikipedia help? man

[Faun]

In general its good but not trustworthy for sensitive topics.

[huntluck]

Originally Posted by kanjar

In general its good but not trustworthy for sensitive topics.

Yeah i agree for the above sweet sentence

[Aspire]

I remember posing this very question in a debate in my school

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

My answer to it would be:
We can trust wikipedia pretty much, but only as a starting point on the way to more credible research.

[Aerohawk]

I think its pretty trustworthy, helped me a lot actually. While its credibility is sometimes questioned its rather accurate and presents content in a coherent and well defined fashion. Sure a few bits might be a bit off but nothing in the interwebs is credible now is it?

[gagan007]

I do not have any idea which topics you are talking about but I have read some "sensitive" topics on China (Tiananmen Square) and others...I donot think its trustworthyness can be doubted

[Rahim]

I read articles of finance related terms and find it more explanatory.

[it_waaznt_me]

Hmmm ... I guess the bane we are talking about here are POV articles .. WikiPedia is a social movement .. If you feel the page isnt having the correct information you can edit it .. If you dont want to edit it, you can always keep a watch on Talk page ..

[DigitalDude]

as far as I read, many topics related to vedas are misaligned/misinterpreted and the page is also locked from editing, citing 'vandalism' as if no other topic is victim for vandalism.



_

[celldweller1591]

As we all know that wiki is updated by everyone around. But the posts or changes made a cross checked by the developer team and content is verified, edited and posted ! So there is a chance or error but its very small . But you cannot deny the fact that it is a vast database of information .

[Aspire]

But the posts or changes made a cross checked by the developer team and content is verified, edited and posted !

But surely the developer team cant cross check each and every change! (Almost a 1000 daily)

[ico]

legends, myths and stories.

[nagesh560021]

hiiiii to everyone i m nagesh frm bangalore i m one of the active person to view the wikipedia regularly its one among the awesome sites n it shld provide some updation regularly n latest topics shld be uploaded in regular time of intervals n it shld provide free registration n community members can share the knowledge

[Faun]

where ia that skeletor cartoon editing he-man's page...lol. Somebody post it for the sake of santa claus.

[DigitalDude]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16/




_

[pravinbv]

the logic behind the Wikipedia is that MORE people will make the information correct than those meke it Wrong or as they want. Just think of U and what will u do if u are intrested in editig Wikipedia. u will for sure give the correct information as per ur knowledge. though some people make it wrong, more peoples will correct the content.
I am the Big supporter of it. just thing of the biggest, detailed and free information on any topic u cant find anywhere. so forget about the trust or not to trust, just get the much of info. BTW even though some informatiiion is politically inspired, it is also a fact. few people think like that so the info.

[ico]

Originally Posted by kanjar

where ia that skeletor cartoon editing he-man's page...lol. Somebody post it for the sake of santa claus.

hahaha i was also thinking the same.