Is Wikipedia a Bad Site?

[Niko Bellic 817]

I personally don't think it's bad at all. People critisize it for having false information. I find all of it mostly truthful.

[Keats]

No, but people think that because anyone can edit it that it's full of false information. Little do they know that there are actually people who reverse any damage done to the site in short order, so most of it is pretty factual.

[basement24]

I think it's a good go-to for basic information. If you hear somethign on television and don't understand what's being talked about, it might give a good overview to get you basically informed.

Further than that, I wouldn't trust the site much. It should never be used as a source for any type of paper written for school for one. I have heard that many people say there's nothing wrong with it's information, but anyone can write whatever they want on it.

The catch to Wikipedia is that most of the high-profile articles are heavily moderated and most untrue information will be removed shortly after it being posted, if not immediately. The catch is new articles or not as moderated ones. if I wanted to say I was president of the world I could go on and create a brand new page about me and how I conquered the world. It can be immediately published and searched. It can also go unnoticed for some time because it's not high-profile. Because of this, anything you find on there many not be 100% accurate depending on who is moderating it.

A couple of years ago, a Reader's Digest article I read was called out by a number of individuals who wrote in saying their information was false. Their rebuttal was stated "At the time of the article's printing, the information was accurate according to Wikipedia." So, if they were looking at the right moment where I declared myself the ruler of the world, then they could present it as fact and say it was accurate even though it was me just horsing around.

So, for down to earth facts on subjects, it's probably best to look up something in a library. Wikipedia will never be a 100% reliable source for information at all unfortunately because of the nature of the ability to self-author it. For general facts and knowledge as a basis for information gathering it can be a useful tool though. It should never be relied on as a be-all-end-all source of facts and definitive quotes though.

[TVTMaster]

High-profile Wikipedia articles (as in, anything you'd go to for information on a topic, e.g. George Washington or Libya or E. Coli) are typically heavily moderated- so much so that one cannot actually write a research paper or other article on the topic without noticing the change. In addition, essentially nobody vandalizes articles to tell you that George Washington's father died in 1745 instead of 1743 or whatever. Any vandalism is likely to be extremely noticable, and any research paper not made in a total rush is going to have visited the page more than often enough to avoid misinformation due to vandalism.

Essentially, anyone who has the barest shred of discernment should easily be able to tell if an article is reputable. Featured articles, especially, ought to be considered valid sources, since they tend to be the most heavily moderated of all. In essence, only profoundly stupid people would really ever publish false information that came from Wikipedia in general- it's only in extremely narrow topics that it's even a real danger.

[link to present]

Its not a bad site and I use it alot when I get bored on the computer:ocarina:

[Atsuma]

Not a bad site like the fellow above me said. I use it when I need to find information on something, which is rare, really. ^^

[Josh]

Wikipedia is to me one of the greatest sites I've ever come across.

I've used it in a lot of projects I have done, and it does get me what I need. I mean, a least in high high school or below, unless the teachers are just idiots and can't tell what's right or wrong, it got me through them. And for the most part it's right from what I know. Sure there are a few bad things every now and then, but a lot of the time those are fixed a short time after anyway. Naturally it's not as good at a college level, but otherwise it's good.

And it's a good place to spend time when you're bored. Just sit and read all day.

[Neo]

To be honest, you cannot trust Wikipedia. It is far too easy to give false information.

Even with the moderation, it is possible to get bad information through. There's always a better site than Wikipedia.

[Dragon565333]

I sometimes Trust them But not all the Time Some Stuff you have to look up in magazines!

[DisappearingMist]

Wikipedia is great for a quick reference. But it is not meant for research papers. Many teachers don't consider it a legitimate source, for good reason. But I use it all the time for general information.

[Chrono]

Wikipedia is full of stolen articles and information. Yes they provide references, but it is still not sourcing others correctly.

[fredthehylian]

Nope. It only has some false info but its pretty easy to tell its not real. Such as when someone chose a random spot and typed in "Angry Video Game Nerd PWNS Irate "Hack" Gamer". Which doesn't count as false info but there might be more.

[Sovako]

Yeah, I love wikipedia. All my professors are like class wikipedia is a bad thing, you will be failed if I see you using it. But personally, theres no better way of starting a paper than, wiki! :P

[Bob Majinki]

Before Wikipedia implemented its policy of having important documents only edited by senior members, the site was downright terrible. And still, much information that the site gives is COMPLETELY inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, etc. For example, let's look at the page for World War II.

The main image is showing seemingly war pictures. So far, no maps, no leading generals, just war images. Let's continue through the article, looking only through pictures for now. We have lots of war images, a few pictures of the leaders, more war images, more war images, a nuclear bomb, and we get our first graph after half the article is over. We have a second graph, and then a lot of citations. What is missing?

Not a single map. Not one single map. No maps of Europe, Asia, anything. Not a single dang map. 307 citations, and there are NO MAPS. Wouldn't you think a map like this would be 100% necessary for a World War II encyclopedia page?

From a non-Wikipedia source;
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/postww2.gifhttp://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/postww2b.gif
(Aftermath of the Second World War)
(sorry text on right's hard to read against black background)

Wikipedia has its uses, but it's not even close to being reliable. For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.

[Zeruda]

Wikipedia has its uses, but it's not even close to being reliable. For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.
Hahaha, it's funny but true. Wikipedia is a horrible source for reliable information. Often, in reports and whatnot, people are not allowed to source or cite Wikipedia because it does contain many errors. For general information, yeah, it's decent. But if you're looking for real, in-depth, 100% true sourced material, you're better off sticking to a library or the primary articles themselves.

[basement24]

For those looking for a list of anime episodes however, they're pretty trustworthy.

LOL, I would have to agree! Not for anime, but I only really use it for cast lists and episode guides for Simpsons, King of the Hill and the like. It's great to help understand some of the very obscure pop culture references in Family Guy as well if you're so inclined.

Otherwise, galring omissions like your example of a WWII map of occupancy make it not the best source. It's sad that really only current and extremely popular events get true moderator attention since the site does have a lot of potential.

[Cyrus Skyray]

For what it is, Wikipedia is a great site. The information it has may be somewhat lacking in depth / inaccurate, however there aren't many (if any) sites of that nature as easy to access as Wikipedia.

[Miss Moonlight]

It's not a "bad" site. The only bad thing about it is that the information isn't always as credible as some people would like to believe, since basically anyone can add/edit/delete things. But it's a good resource and place for information.

[Axle the Beast]

I personally use Wikipedia a lot. It's especially useful for getting the basic idea of something. But it can have false information, which isn't a good thing. Still, I tend to find things that are true on there.

I think it's the best place to go if you don't know anything at all about what you're looking up. From there, perhaps it would be better to look at another source.

The fact that anyone can edit is it's main flaw, but also it's main strength.

[Immortal_One]

So many people criticize Wikipedia for being totally unreliable just because anyone can edit it. The site has a countless amount of moderators who have stood out from the rest of the community for their good edits and immense library of knowledge. These moderators are from different places all across the globe and are serious about what they do.

A few things slip through the cracks, but these few things are the only ones we hear about. There is a team of moderators on the recent edits page of Wikipedia at any given second of the day. Yes, the site lacks things like graphics and possibly some text-based information, but it's not up to the staff of Wikipedia to add that information, it's up to the users to contribute and add information as they see fit.

If you see that a Wikipedia page is missing something important, then add to that page. That's what the site was built for.

[chrisbg99]

For trivia or non-contested information it is useful but for anything controversial or open heavily to interpretation I wouldn't trust it past getting an overview on the subject.

[linkman8]

Ultimately I don't understand the reasoning behind many teachers saying "Don't use Wikipedia, it's an unreliable source." Virtually every page on Wikipedia has valid information put in by trustworthy people (moderators) that is always cited to either a book or another website to prove its validity. To say that you can just type in whatever rubbish you want is only true to a degree. You can only edit some pages, while some of the more important pages are locked and can't be edited, and in addition, any new changes that have been made are automatically logged, ready to be verified by a moderator, who will test its validity and change it if necessary.

[Werewolfy]

I do use Wikipedia occasionally. However, it's always better to look at official websites for the information you're looking for, since you're more likely to have professionals giving the information there. Not saying that's entirely true, considering there are false websites out there, and very smart Wiki people, but it's more likely.

What I mostly use Wikipedia for is video game or anime information, since it seems pretty decent for that much, at least. I used to use it for school work, but I eventually found it better to go for other sites. And sometimes I still use Wikipedia as a secondary resource. Find some information on one site, go to another one to contrast and compare information as well as find new stuff to use.

It's not necessarily a bad website to use, but it's also not the most legit one at the same time. I say it's okay to use, but you should always look for other resources anyway, especially if it's for school.

[K4KING]

Is Wikipedia a Bad Site? Yes, IF it does not have a Link to a certain Information thereby proving it True. No, IF the site has Proven any statement that is Purely True with the Usage of Links.

Wikipedia is just a site. People, rather persons who had done some research (some of them are Excellent some are very Poor) go there and post information that may be changed from time to time.

[Bob Majinki]

Is Wikipedia a Bad Site? Yes, IF it does not have a Link to a certain Information thereby proving it True. No, IF the site has Proven any statement that is Purely True with the Usage of Links.

Wikipedia is just a site. People, rather persons who had done some research (some of them are Excellent some are very Poor) go there and post information that may be changed from time to time.

Even with the links, the information is usually false.

[Werewolfy]

Even with the links, the information is usually false.
How do you know for fact that the information is "usually false"? Whenver I've used it, it's seemed pretty accurate. Again, I think you should always get a second opinion, especially on school stuff. But what makes it "usually false"? This is implying that most Wiki users are putting up false information, which in turn implies one of two things:

1.) They don't know what they're talking about. If this is the case, then why are they on Wikipedia? Always get your facts straight before putting information up on the internet, which I'll bet most of them do. Not necessarily all of them, but I'd bet a good majority of Wiki users do indeed do that.

OR 2.) They're doing it on purpose. Less likely than the first one, since the only question is: Why would they do that? Maybe as a prank, I suppose, but someone else is bound to come up and fix it.

[Bob Majinki]

How do you know for fact that the information is "usually false"? Whenver I've used it, it's seemed pretty accurate. Again, I think you should always get a second opinion, especially on school stuff. But what makes it "usually false"? This is implying that most Wiki users are putting up false information, which in turn implies one of two things:

1.) They don't know what they're talking about. If this is the case, then why are they on Wikipedia? Always get your facts straight before putting information up on the internet, which I'll bet most of them do. Not necessarily all of them, but I'd bet a good majority of Wiki users do indeed do that.

OR 2.) They're doing it on purpose. Less likely than the first one, since the only question is: Why would they do that? Maybe as a prank, I suppose, but someone else is bound to come up and fix it.

The information on major subjects usually has a limited viewpoint, and often times are poorly written. Never trust historical documentation that is poorly written. Let me bring up some major examples:


In August 1950, the President and the Secretary of State easily persuaded the Congress to appropriate $12 billion to pay for the additional Asian military expenses essential to the goals of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), the American global containment of communism.[66]

Why are those words italicized? This is a small nitpick here, obviously. After this post I will fix that mistake.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Korean_war_1950-1953.gif
This image ignores an enormous amount of the land territory changes during the span of the war. This only shows five different territory maps. It completely ignores a major part of the war; Americans landing in Incheon and liberating South Korea in a strange, flank-like pattern. It also does not give the impression of how long it took for the United States and Allies to regain the South. It makes everything seem instantaneous. The only part of it that was instantaneous was the initial invasion by North Korea.

Here's a better illustration of how it actually happened:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/korean_w.gif
Note that you DO NOT have permission to use this graphic on Wikipedia, as per request of the author of it. Notice how much more information this has, and how it actually gives an impression on how long and hard the war really was. After all, it is in the Top 10 worst atrocities that ever happened in human history, this war is.

Let us move on to another subject closer to my roots, thus one I know a lot about.


Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure both within and outside Iran. He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights.

Second paragraph and you're attacking the man. Leave that for the controversy section. Whatever happened to unbiased reporting? Let's compare this to a better written article.


Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004.

See? That's an unbiased statement, fitting for a second paragraph. It's simple historic fact that is 100% true, as opposed to the name-calling you saw for Ahmadinejad.

The Ahmadinejad article is locked. I cannot fix this mistake. The only people who can are biased to be naturally against him. There's only a few people who are deserving of such negative opening articles: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Kim Il-Sung. For crying out loud, Fidel Castro's opening paragraphs are less biased, and unlike Ahmadinejad, he wasn't democratically elected.

On the article for the State of Palestine, it says in an accurate graphic that South Korea does not fully recognize us, but that they recognize delegates. However, in the list, South Korea is not listed as one who recognizes the delegation. Oh, and the Vatican is listed as not in Europe. The Vatican most definitely is in Europe, who said it isn't in Europe?

Luckily, that article isn't locked, so I'll be fixing this after I make the post.

I could go on all day if I have to.

[Werewolfy]

You have some good points. One thing to point out about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, is that it says "He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights." This is stating that these things have been said, rather than the author saying them. In this sense, it is fact, unless he hasn't been criticized for those things.

That little nitpick aside, you are correct for the most part. And this is why I strongly recommend a second, third, maybe even fourth if you want, source if you're going to use Wikipedia. I've used Wikipedia in the past, but that was mostly during middle school when I was sadly unaware of the dangers of the site. Nowadays, I take lengths to avoid it, and only use it if it really comes down to it. I also use it for anime and video game information, but that's stuff that isn't really important. Even then, I don't trust the information there as much as I do other sites.

[Bob Majinki]

You have some good points. One thing to point out about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, is that it says "He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights." This is stating that these things have been said, rather than the author saying them. In this sense, it is fact, unless he hasn't been criticized for those things.

The mood is set immediately that he is instantly an evil man; which is not true. He has not committed genocide, he is simply anti-American. If I start an article on Obama with "He has been criticized of being a Kenyan national," which may be fact, and then followed on for the rest of the article that he is not American, that would be setting the mood of anti-Obama.

Leave the criticisms and the editorials for that specific section. The introduction paragraph for Ahmadinejad should simply have his name, birthplace and day, country, basic information, and then follow that up with non-biased political information saying that he was elected as Mayor of Tehran in said year and become President on said year and if the second run for president is too controversial, leave it for later in the article.

Kim Jong-il has a very controversial political career, but his Wikipedia article's introductory paragraphs say nothing about him being a warmonger. They simply say that according to CNN, he is the world's most mysterious leader, and that he is addressed as "Dear Leader" in his country. No controversial statements. No bias, except maybe on CNN. Just cold facts.

And while the Irish song Danny Boy has a tag on it to be checked for neutrality, Ahmadinejad's article has none. That's because it's left to the "experts" who hate the man and want to portray him and his country as anti-American, which is generally untrue. The man ws in NYC a few days ago, gave a very informative interview with the Associated Press, which is nowhere referenced on the page, and I cannot bring up that interview or quotes because it is locked by the "experts."

I've used this example before, but the page on World War II doesn't have a single map on it. That is just inexcusable. Needless to say, page is locked. I don't mind the pages being locked by experts, I'm just questioning whether those who do have access to these pages actually are experts.

Wikipedia is a good starting point though, but like you said, please use non-Wikipedia sources. A history textbook or two will usually do.

[El Bagu]

I don´t know, but I wish I did. Guess I´m not smart enough to make a wise statement about it myself.

But I must admit that I do use the site from time to time. Do I trust it? Not a lot but it usually gives me some kind of hint (is that a word in the english language?) and I do like to learn things.

I will follow this thread with great interest.

[DisappearingMist]

gives me some kind of hint (is that a word in the english language?)

Yes it is an English word. And a good context use for it as well.

[Bob Majinki]

Another BIG mistake on Wikipedia's part.

This is their map of Kuwait:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Map_of_Kuwait.svg/800px-Map_of_Kuwait.svg.png

It shows that the enclave within UAE belongs to Kuwait. This is incorrect. That enclave belongs to Oman, and within that enclave is a second enclave that belongs to UAE (I have no idea why the boundaries are like that). If I had the proper software to edit SVG files, I would definitely fix that...

Also why is Kuwait's second paragraph talking about the invasion of it? That should be axed and the third paragraph, which talks about the economy, should be put there in its place.

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now. XD

[Shnappy]

I rely on Wikipedia for a lot of things. Sure, anyone can edit, making them unreliable at times (points at Bob Majinki's post), but mostly everything tends to be pretty reliable. If some absurd false fact appears on a page, it usually gets removed pretty quickly. So no, I wouldn't label it as a bad site, even though I may rely on it a bit too much.

[Alex_Da_Great]

I think that wikipedia is a reliable sight and it is alright to go there for the basic information. But you should always try other sites and when you're doing essays, etc. It's always best not to use Wikipedia.

And with the false information, it will be changed back ASAP as there are people from the Wikipedia team who check everything. For example, I saw this fake information on there, came back an hour later and it was deleted!

[-JelloGoMoo-]

I use Wikipedia a lot, but since it can be edited by anyone in the world who looks at it, I don't find it very trustworthy at times.

[Notorious NATE]

I have had numerous teachers tell me that Wikipedia is a very accurate site. However, they do not want us to use Wikipedia for research papers simply because it has so much information. The whole point of a research paper is to research, and Wikipedia makes research so much easier.

[Emicon]

Wikipedia is a good site is you are just hoping to become enlightened on a particular subject. I wouldn't be caught dead using it as a source for a school paper, though. Most professors won't accept papers that used Wikipedia, and I also can't hope that the information is right. However, I do look at the sources that Wikipedia uses for their articles and sometimes I'll use them if they look legit enough.

All-in-all... it's important to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and not consider it the authority on everything.

[Niko Bellic 817]

The whole point of a research paper is to research, and Wikipedia makes research so much easier.

:huh: If it saves you time and you have access to legit info, then why don't they recommend it?

[Notorious NATE]

:huh: If it saves you time and you have access to legit info, then why don't they recommend it?

Because getting information from Wikipedia isn't the whole point of a research paper. If everyone just went on Wikipedia to get their information, it kind of defeats the purpose. Doesn't it?

[lonely_moon]

I like Wikipedia, and I trust it a lot more than most of the people at my school. They seem to think that Wikipedia is the devil's encyclopedia or something, that it's wrong no matter what. But it's for the most part fairly reliable and it's very easy to access information you're looking for.

But, like other people here, I wouldn't use it as my sole source of information. It's got a fairly bad rep at my school and some of its content may be false. However, if you are doing a research paper, Wikipedia is a good starting point and the source links at the bottom of the page can take you to more reliable content.

[Bob Majinki]

:huh: If it saves you time and you have access to legit info, then why don't they recommend it?

Because Wikipedia's specialty is providing false information on serious topics.

[linkman8]

Because Wikipedia's specialty is providing false information on serious topics.
I'm starting to think my post was ignored.

The only real reason that popular knowledge says that Wikipedia is unreliable, is because of maybe a handful of failures in accuracy, which all things considered is not that bad. Wikipedia may be something that anyone can edit, but the validity of every edit is certified by a moderator before being left there permanently. Therefore, someone may get their facts wrong, but it still has to be cited to another source otherwise it will be labeled as "uncited" or it may be deleted or edited.

And like I said, many of the "serious topics" cannot be edited. Look up World War II. Can you edit that? No.

[DisappearingMist]

I have seen some articles about Alaska that have incorrect information in them. Whether they were fact checked or not, the information is not correct. Even with those safeguards in place, I don't use Wikipedia for research papers just to be safe.

[Alexander]

I tend to stray away from Wikipedia when I look up my facts or do research. The simple answer/reason: lack of credibility. Any person who knows how to use a computer and at least has a somewhat competent grasp on how to edit on Wikipedia or any other Wiki would certainly be able to twist and bend information so that it's entirely false. While they do have frequent moderators, there are the odds that an edit is made and you see it before it is ensured that it's valid and correct information.

Other than (what I believe as) it's lack of credibility, Wikipedia is a fine tool for getting research done easily and effortlessly. I'm guilty of using it for school projects sometimes, but only if I'm feeling daring and can't find the information at other sources.

[Bob Majinki]

And like I said, many of the "serious topics" cannot be edited. Look up World War II. Can you edit that? No.

World War II's article has not a single map on it. Can I edit that to fix it? No.
First sentence of Westboro Baptist Church sets an incorrect tone to the article that makes it appear as completely biased. Can I edit that to fix it? No.
World War I's article provides false evidence about the Battle of Gallipoli and ignores the fact that the Turks were assisted by the Germans. Can I edit that to fix it? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness This is just a crap article on one of the more fundamental emotions of the human condition. Can I edit that to fix it? No.

I can pull out a ton of these, seriously.

[Hanyou]

I once used Wikipedia to study for a Russian history final, and I passed the class with flying colors.

'Nuff said. The site won me over thereafter, and while it has some inaccuracies on occasions, it's a very reliable source--especially for getting other sources.

[Rensch]

It is hard to make a good opinion about Wikipedia. On one hand, everyone can contribute to it, making it easy for errors to slip in, on the other hand you can just go ahead and correct and don't have to wait a year for a correction. Its biggest strength is also its biggest flaw.