• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is Wikipedia a Bad Site?

Bob Majinki

Deku Director
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
USA
Another BIG mistake on Wikipedia's part.

This is their map of Kuwait:
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

derp
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Colorado
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

Dark Link is here...
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Location
Australia
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!
 
N

Notorious NATE

Guest
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.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Location
OH
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.
 
N

Notorious NATE

Guest
: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?
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Location
In your face
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.
 

linkman8

True and Noble
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Location
United States of America
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

Mrs. Caleb
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Location
Alaska
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.
 
A

Alexander

Guest
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

Deku Director
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
USA
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom