Wikipedia ? How credible

The New York Times is considered a 'credible source'? Jeez. No wonder our education system is so f***ed up. I find that some things on Wiki are good and credible. Others, not so. But if you follow the links...not bad. But anymore,what is a good source? Please don't recommend TV news, News magazines, radio or newspapers.

 

Just look up their entry for Kangaroo. It's pretty awesome.

 

I trust and rely on Wikipedia. But then again, I use it as a reference, not for new information... I go to Wikipedia to confirm or deny the validity of an article and have yet to have made a mistake. It's a useful tool.

 

average university's take is that they're fine with it since they only want one point of view anyway....their own/the left.

 

I think Wiki is in general a reliable source, and amazingly objective as a general proposition, usually presenting both side to a position.

However, it certainly is not infallible or perfect.

 

I would say that theyt are generally reliable on a topic that in no way could it be turned political which would be...........................

 

Yup,the Real George Soros { Gyorgy Schwartz } is not made mention of.
The one who still is " enjoys " and repeatedly called the year 1944
" the best year of his life ".The year he used a protector
who swore little Gyorgy,then George was his adopted grandson.
When he went out,in fact,and helped the nazi's in the confiscation
of property from fellow jews,neighbors and friends.
When asked on Sixty Minutes by Steve Kroft about that :

Kroft : " Went out,in fact,and helped in the confiscation of property
of you fellow jews,neighbors and friends."

Soros : " Yes.That's right. Yes "

Kroft : " I mean,that sounds like an experience that would send lots of
people to the psychiatrist couch for many,many years.
What is difficult.? "

Soros : " No,not at all.Not at all,I rather enjoyed it. "

Kroft : " No feelings of guilt. ? "

Soros : " No,only feeling of absolute power. "


This is the same Soros or Schultz who has also admitted
in an article to having carried " potent messianic fantasies with me from
childhood. "

 

I don't ever rely on Wikipedia to be the completely accurate. I check it out mainly to see the resources which are cited, which leads me to other resources, etc. It can be a good starting point if you know nothing about a subject but should never be counted on as the "truth".

 

I don't trust the wikies. They're too easily manipulated, especially the pages with powerful lobbies on either side. So if a page is about a political event or a politician, you have to realize that they actually have staffers that do little more than make sure that nothing "bad" appears on Wikipedia. Corporations do much the same, so if you'd have a story that critisizes Shop'n'Save, the people at Shop'n'Save will have someone edit it out rather quickly, so really unless a group trying to include that story (legit or not) are more determined than the guy who's job it is to prevent such data from being included, it won't be on the main page (it might make it to the discussion pages, though). The other problem is that in some more complex science/math topics, you might find popular though inaccurate explanations of the material.

You're much better off ignoring it, especially if you are dealing in complex or controversial topics.

 

Which means it tends towars a Bias.For all we know that could be it's
ultimate purpose.To slightly alter or delete Info that could be
extremely important to an Issue or a person.
Like let's use O.J. Forgetting to mention that,in fact his wife
Nicole did call 9/11 not just once but a couple times to
ask for help about an obvioulsy distraught and very aggravated O.J.
Meaning No discussion about O.J. would be complete w/o mentioning he
did in fact have a closet temper.That temper eventually was his unravelling as he thougth it No biggy to go up to a collectors room with a couple thugs
and pull out a gun and threaten to get memorabilia.

 

Sorry Foolardi, my memory is getting soft, as I haven't looked into Mr. Soros activities in this area for a while.

The term is actually Open Access, and, it is Budapest.

http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read

 

Soros can call his next venture - Moores Widdle Piggy Bank -
for all the good it will dude.The guy's a snake-in-the-grass.
A demon among Globalist.
Made his first Billion {shorting the British Pound } at the expense
of average Brits { homeowners}.
Now repeat after me ... I can ... I can ... I can say the
words ... Robber Baron.

 

I actually heard some research statistics on Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica while at a tech conference. Though I can't for the life of me remember the source for the study.

What they found was that an average page in Encyclopedia B. has on average 4 mistakes made per page. Wikipedia, on the other hand, averages about 5 mistakes per page.

Now, thats not half bad for Wiki, and was actually quite surprising. The kicker in all of this though is the differences in format for those two entities. Mistakes in Wiki can be corrected on the spot immediately, while an Encyclopedia has to wait for the next edition.

Ever since I heard that, I've been more confident in Wiki for a source for "some" information. Though I wouldn't use it exclusively if I were writing a term paper or a thesis.

 

The writing is on the wall.

Right now, there is a hard copy, peer reviewed journalistic/publisher standard.

Open access initiative...puts potential manipulation of "research" and "fact" and "acceptance" and "accrediation" and "denial of the above for hidden ideological reasons" into play of the hands that control the intiative.

Leading global champion of the initiative? Mr. George Soros.

Facts are barely discernable as facts now....just wait.

 

It's a basic tool, a reference point from which to start. It's useful as a method to illustrate the elementary concept of an idea to someone, but it's not known for it's devotion to accuracy.

Case in point --

There is a product made in South Carolina called "Blenheim Ginger Ale". If you type that term into Wikipedia, it brings up a page discussing Blenheim, and on that page it says...

We fought the Redcoats during the Civil War? I never knew that!

 

If not for Peer Review Gore would never have been able to
hoodwink as far along as he did with Global Warming.
But what Gore did was pick and choose in a highly selective
and biased way,those Peer reviews that supported his warming claims.
Other Peer Review was purposedly scoffed-down and refused admission
as to the Global Warming Debate.That Peer Review that was contrary to
supported data that helped propagate a hoax.
So that is just one example of how Peer Review,usually a professional
and scientific explanation can be used to cover-up or mount a Hoax.

 

Well, Wikipedia is really reliable in the history of the American parties, Anarchism, Communism...

The articles about Anarchism for example are incredibly good.

 

Wikipedia is only as credible as its sources. NEVER cite wikipedia on anything serious. Use the sources provided in wikipedia and determine if they are credible or not.

Personally, I've found wikipedia to be pretty reliable, even on things that don't have citations.

 

More reasons for my boycott and disregard for wookeepeedeeUh; not that more was needed.

 

It's good for the text tweeting crowd but, not for people that can spell.

 

I'm Catholic, and I've heard the word excommunicated used by non-Catholics much more than by other Catholics. For the most part, besides Catholics teaching false doctrine, most excommunication is simply by action.

Don't trust wikipedia on anything political or controversial. It's not bad on routine information.

- - - Updated - - -

Wikipedia not usually acceptable. Internet, it just depends on the website. Some are reputable, some aren't.

 

Apparently I'm one of them.

A few weeks ago I started to notice one of my previous posts on my blog was starting to get regular hits from Wikipedia. I checked out the page and it's a page reviewing a book that I mentioned in my post. My blog is listed as a source for that article, even though what was cited had nothing to do with what I wrote in my blog.

 

It's as reliable as its sources. The unfortunate thing you must learn is that history has been rewritten and the present is twisted and fabricated.

 

Wikipedia is an easy reference source and invisible editors are constantly modifying and adding articles and controversial topics are often locked by administrators to prevent further editing, which may indicate that those locked pages are politically biased. Wikipedia editors are generally more educated than forum posters but some of them are just amateurs and they have their own forums or talk pages to discuss editing issues. A Wikipedia article is a good summary of what's in public knowledge but you may have to check sources listed at the bottom of each article to verify them.

 

Going to Wikipedia to look up a politician's religion eliminates one from consideration as someone to be taken seriously.