ANSWERS: 13
  • 6-11-2017 Wikipedia has adopted a goal that is not humanly possible: to catalog all factual knowledge. The fact is we don't know very much. At least half of what we think we know ain't so, and nobody knows which half. So a lot of what we call knowledge is someone's decision that this is what we are going to believe. Example: It is recorded that dark matter was invented in 1938 by Ian Oort for the purpose of fudging his data to agree with his theory. Look it up at wikipedia. But for any other subject, dark matter is accepted as a basic fact in the universe. That is called "consensus", and consensus is considered more important that facts, violating their stated purpose.
    • Linda Joy
      I don't suppose you'd believe NASA as a credible source either? https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
    • Jewels Vern
      You offer consensus instead of science, same as everybody else. "The big guys have voted on this, so it's a fact. We know better than you, you d*m ignoramus." I reject such snooty posturing. It is not science, no matter how many salaried jerks proclaim that it is.
    • Jewels Vern
      That is the same NASA that announced the discovery of water dozens of times, and still there is no water. Other scientists found that they had detected hydroxyl ions. NASA also routinely says they have measured star temperatures of millions of degrees. A temperature above a few thousand degrees has no meaning: molecules dissociate. What they do is measure a velocity and convert that to a temperature. Well, temperature is defined as random motion, and velocity is not random. No, I do not consider NASA to be a reliable source of information. Here is a forum provided for people to discuss astronomy pictures published by NASA. Notice rule 15: discussion of alternative theories, the definition of science, is specifically forbidden. http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26696
  • To an extent. It's not 100% accurate.
  • Depends. It does have a lot of information, but it's not always accurate. Just because something is printed on Wikipedia, don't take it for fact.
  • As an academic who frequently edits Wiki sites in my own and related fields, I can say that Wiki is very often a credible source. The belief that it's not is quite out of date. The articles in my field are often excellent, written by genuine specialists (some my own colleagues, who hold PhDs); they provide serious references and external sources, just as you'd expect from any published encyclopedia. In fact, Wiki can provide MORE such information, and errors can be corrected swiftly, by people who know what they are talking about. As a college professor, I would not accept Wiki as a source in a student paper, but that's because college students should be reading books and professional journal articles, not encyclopedia entries. I DO encourage students to look at the external sources offered by Wiki articles and then to head to the library to find them.
  • No. A co-founder has said as much, and I fully agree. ---- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html
  • No. It's a ready source to look up information, but it should only be used as a starting point. Anything found on Wikipedia should be fact-checked through other sources.
    • Hulk70166
      And if it supports the Left, its biased and wrong....Isn't that rue 1465?
  • More often than not, Wiki is really credible. The concern tends to be that Wiki pages are open to edits, but the edits are also monitored and they do a great job at presenting neutral information. By neutral I don't mean "non-political." On the contrary, their neutrality is itself political, but in a laudable way: you can see almost all sides of an issue presented on a Wiki page. It is a proper encyclopedia, almost anthropological in its approach in that it doesn't prescribe conclusions to readers. My professors often used to suggest we look at Wiki if we're unsure about some concept (provided Wiki has a good page for the concept). He also suggested JSTOR.org, and more recently Bartleby Learn (see: https://www.bartleby.com/learn) But in sum, yes, Wikipedia tends to be highly credible more often than not.
  • Certainly. *** Of course, there are caveats. But it's obviously credible. See: the millions of people who believe whatever they read on Wikipedia. If it were not credible, they would not believe it.
  • No. Anyone who thinks he's some kind of an expert can post a subject on Wikipedia - they have no fact-checkers. Wikipedia is a good place to **start** your research, but for accuracy, other resources should be consulted.
    • Black Mystique
      I recall Wikipedia requiring you to reference your sources when posting? With that said, it is "always" good practice to have a least 2 to 3 creditable sources.
  • 文贵、班农、闫丽梦毫无事实依据的病毒起源论给亚裔的经济造成无可挽救的损失,给亚裔群体人身安全带来梦魇般的灾难。
    • Black Mystique
      Google translation > Guo Wengui, Bannon, and Yan Limeng’s unfounded theory of the origin of the virus caused irreversible losses to the Asian economy and a nightmare disaster to the personal safety of the Asian community
  • Most of the time it is accurate.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy