Wikipedia - is it reliable source of information?

[Reltih]

Yes or no, explain what you think!

[Marcus Marulus]

As far as I recall, there was already a discussion on the reliability of Wikipedia on this board.

As I see it, Wikipedia is good as first reference on a subject, a first hint, sometimes you find titles of books in Wikipedia article. But informations and data from Wikipedia cannot be treated as reliable source.

Good to get a general idea, then you have to proceed to serious reading of serious articles and monographies.

[Reltih]

I inserted poll. I want to see real results.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Reltih

I inserted poll. I want to see real results.

I voted for "other" and I explained it in my previous post.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I voted for "other" and I explained it in my previous post.

Yes, I see. Do you think it is unbiased and objective on the whole?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Reltih

Yes, I see. Do you think it is unbiased and objective on the whole?

Mostly it is unbiased, except for some very sensitive themes (like conflicts presently going on and similar).

[kyashan]

it's a good source for quick informations on the internet, but there is not enough peer reviewing to consider it an academically valuable source, you would never quote it in your Master's degree thesis.
It's more reliable than Racial Reality though, that's for sure

[Errigal]

Wikipedia is worth looking at but it can be tainted by people with a hidden agenda. For example, the entry for Albert Einstein is controversial because his contribution to physics seems to be overstated by many in the United States for political reasons.

[Strengthandhonour]

I said yes for some information. I use wikipedia for pop culture(looking at tv show info,video games,movies,ec) but not for serious research. My university does not allow students to use wikipedia as a source.

[Susi]

I would agree with strengthandhonour about pop culture, but pretty much everything else I think is not good as a source. It is a good collection of further links and resources (in the citations, if they have any)..

I don't like it as a source.

[Menydh]

I voted "other". A more appropriate option would have been "Information there must be taken with at least a pinch of salt".

Like Prometheus has said, this has been discussed not long ago. And if memory serves, a more or less general consensus was that it is good for a quick reference which you must then contrast with reliable sources.

[Erasmus]

I voted "yes, in some areas", I never use it for "sensitive" information

[Sergius]

I use it only when I need to know who is the bad guy in a conflict, such as the American wars in the Middle East, or when I need to know where the borders of Balkans are.

Seriously, though, I agree with most of you on this. Not a bad source for a quick check, but that's it.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

I use it only when I need to know who is the bad guy in a conflict, such as the American wars in the Middle East, or when I need to know where the borders of Balkans are.

Only God knows

About wikipedia, I agree with Prometheus. I only use it when I need to get the first info about something new I heard. After wiki, if I'm still interested in it, I use other sources.