The whole anyone can change it thing, its good and bad. Chances are however most of the things that are bad are either fixed or removed within moments, anyone else agree?

I agree. There are some small errors I have noticed in articles. Then again, how more reliable are so-called 'real' encyclopedias? I think Wikipedia is as accurate as it can be. Nothing's perfect, people that moan about it need to get over themselves.

I heard there was a study done that showed Encyclopedia Britannica had just as many mistakes as Wikipedia.

It's a piece of propaganda spread by those who have degrees and fear a loss of control over the spread of knowledge. (in my opinion)

That study does exist and it said it is more accurate than many other encyclopedias.

There is a greater potential for mistakes in Wikipedia than in professional encyclopedias. However, as Aaron said, there was a study done that showed that it is just as reliable as Britannica. Anyone that thinks Wikipedia is unreliable is either unaware of the degree of reliability of Wikipedia or is simply an elitist.

If Wiki is wrong, I don't want to be right.

i'm gonna have a tattoo of what you said

Refrencing Wikipedia for Wikipedia information?

I think you broke the universe.

if you have seen an article that has been graffiti'd you would agree that most of the time it sticks out like a sore thumb. noone is going to edit a page to make a historical date a few years off...

Share love 4 live.Join my cause. its free.Together we can do goothings 4 humanity
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/181796?m=a3c03490&recruiter_id=18427931

I would never treat any source as 100% reliable. Far better to back up the information with a couple of other sources that say the same thing, then you are covered.

Regardless of the content's reliability, there are always a few good sources to start a research project from.

You can't cite Encyclopedias as primary sources.

It's not just Wikipedia.

You CAN use Wikipedia as a basis for starting your research, but you shouldn't base your research on just that site.

I think it's unfair and pretty retarded, but that's how it goes. It doesn't hurt to go out and go to a library yerknow.

everytime i get in the vandalism mood i get caught, every time. The security i'd say is pretty tight

It's not reliable in the sense that it is perfect, but it is reliable in the sense that people try to document things as factual as possible. If you don't think that you are reading reliable information, it is your job to research it. Then it is is your job to change it.

Nothings perfect, but every topic I have looked up is more creditable than anthing that I could have found out before. Maybe not a detailed with facts, but it credible.

I use Wiki much and have not found anything wrong for quick, basic information.

People who oppose wikipedia usually oppose reliable sources, as well.

They want to continue believing their lies.

The problem is that so many people (high school students, mostly) have turned in Wikipedia articles as if they'd written them themselves, which is, of course, cheating. The problem isn't with Wikipedia -- it's with people who aren't smart enough to use it properly.

On vandalism, as a wiki editor, I have watches on over 3000 articles I've edited, or have interest in, and is sad that on some pages 90%+ of edits are vandalism, easily "reverted", but time consuming too. Wikipiedia even has "script-bots" that automatically detect some obvious vandalism.

I'm still amazed that articles are as good as they are, proof there's sincere and passionate people out there working hard! But I admit wikipedia can as much become a trash heap of articles with a lot of small edits and no one trying to organize it into a coherent whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tomruen

My father is an archaeology professor and we had a little arguement, so I've found the study made by Nature magazine and prepared some info to make him change his mind and start recommending the Wiki to his students -

http://noni1914.hit.bg/wiki.htm

If you use Wiki as your only source of information, sure there is the occasional risk of an error (deliberate or otherwise). But if you double-check important facts with the wiki citations (or, if no citation is given, try to find outside confirmation), it can be an incredible resource.

In short, no system of information gathering/distribution is perfect. But wikipedia is pretty damn good.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an academic, I can honestly say that Wikipedia is a fantastic way to gain encyclopedic information on a particular topic, but always address it with Skepticism. I did a wikipedia article for a class in Medieval thinkers andit required us to post a proper wikipedia archive of a specific medieval thinker. even though it was academically graded and critiqued, I still wouldn't use it as a proper source material.

Wiki Rocks!

Nothing is 100% reliable

Wikipedia also has a nice citations section that lets you know where the information came from..

i completely agree! what a wonderful age we live in that whatever we want to know, we can just look it up and become experts on it. That study is interesting, but not so surprising if you think about it. Wikipedia is very monitored and edited over and over. With the Encyclopedia Britannica, if the writers make an error, it's in there forever, and it won't be so easily updated unless they pubblish a newer edition of the book. Anyhow, i agree.

Exactly! It's the most reliable site I know!

If Wikipedia is incorrect, the cause can only be that the source is incorrect, or that the quoting of the source was incorrect. With Wikipedia, you can always check that the source was quoted correctly.

So if Wikipedia info is incorrect, it is either the reader who was not smart enough to see that the quote was incorrect, or the source who was incorrect. So don't shoot the messenger!

in one of my classes we learned that they compared the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia and found the same amount of errors.

wikipedia is probably the MOST reliable source BECAUSE it is frequently updated!!!