Wikipedia.

[OK_Computer]

I feel as if I am a rabbit, and Wikipedia is a box held up by a stick with a carrot inside.

What should I know about Wikipedia to help myself? How many “grains of salt” should be taken when using Wikipedia?

Is the fact that their articles are (almost) completely editable the only thing to bare in mind, or is there more behind Wikipedia?

I don’t trust it.

EDIT: found their disclaimer:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

oh, the irony

-OKComp

[Xunzian]

Nature did some research into wikipedia and found that, while there were on average more errors per article in wikipedia, there were fewer errors per word in wikipedia than Britannica.

So, I would say, on the whole, it is pretty trustworthy. More importantly, wikipedia is pretty good about citing primary sources, so use the wiki article to see whether or not a subject interests you, then read the real information on it from the links.

[OK_Computer]

@Xunzian

Nature did some research into wikipedia and found that, while there were on average more errors per article in wikipedia, there were fewer errors per word in wikipedia than Britannica.

So, I would say, on the whole, it is pretty trustworthy. More importantly, wikipedia is pretty good about citing primary sources, so use the wiki article to see whether or not a subject interests you, then read the real information on it from the links.

Interesting. Have any of you ever used resources in the vein of dictionary.com, thesaurus.com, etc.? I find that these resources are easier to access than an actual hard-copy must be cheaper to maintain as well. Is this the death of the paper resource (dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) as we know it?

And of course, when we all say “wikipedia”, we all mean “random contributors”? Or is there a specific group of people that get payed to compile tonnes of accurate information?

-OKComp

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Xunzian

Nature did some research into wikipedia and found that, while there were on average more errors per article in wikipedia, there were fewer errors per word in wikipedia than Britannica.

So, I would say, on the whole, it is pretty trustworthy. More importantly, wikipedia is pretty good about citing primary sources, so use the wiki article to see whether or not a subject interests you, then read the real information on it from the links.

Excellent advice. I find Wikipedia tremendously useful because of all the footnotes/links. It’s basically an advanced form of search engine, rather than an encyclopedia.

[Twilight_of_the_Idol (Twilight of the Idols)]

@OK Computer

I don’t trust it.

The whole ‘anyone can edit’ thing seems to always throw people for a loop. But let’s face it, we’re talking about one of the best four or five (free) sites on the entire web. Membership (let alone readership) is well into the millions. It’s not as if it’s a bunch of juveniles running around on there, writing edits and articles with no basis in fact just for kicks. Generally, the people who post on there in the first place are those who have something objective to contribute. (Think about it this way: What would cause you to edit something?)

From my experience, it’s more prone to gaps than errors. That is, while you might not get something’s full story, you’re generally not going to get something that’s blatantly untrue. It’s simply cross-checked too often by too many people for that to happen with any consistency. I’d be particularly cautious with some of the smaller, more obscure articles that maybe haven’t been looked at by too many folks; but in terms of the big, popular articles and topics, they seem as reliable as most anything else, and for obvious reasons: they’ve probably been cross-checked a million times - literally.