Is WIKIPEDIA really reliable?

[olmightysmiter]

---

Can we really trust the contents inside Wikipedia? How reliable is it? Post your comments dudes!

:mrgreen:

[Herbit]

Tungod sa nature tingay niya na EVERYONE can edit an entry, makaingon ta na dili na siya reliable. Pero given na based na siya sa GENERAL ACCEPTED TRUTH, partly makasulti na makasaligan na siya. "gamay"

Si Richard Dawkins, usa ka renowned fundamental atheist ug usa ka famous biologist ni suway ug test sa wiki sa entry about evolution. ni ingon siya n despite expert sad siya sa evolution (tungod sa nature sa iyang trabaho ug bilang usa ka atheist na nagbase sa darwinian theory of evolution) niingon na sakto ang mga entry about evolution. iya gisuwayan ug tang2x ug mga paragraphs dayon na shock siya na sa sunod adlaw, nibalik ang iyang gipangtangtang.

[c_cebrecus]

Can we really trust the contents inside Wikipedia? How reliable is it? Post your comments dudes!

:mrgreen:

more or less, Wikipedia is the truth acceptable to all people, since one who disagrees with one entry may edit the content of that entry but the one who submitted that entry will be modifying the content also until such time that the entry is acceptable to both of them..

so basically wikipedia presents the TRUTHS MODIFIED FOR GENERAL ACCEPTANCE

[gaidinX]

Yeah, it's pretty reliable most of the time. Someone may post some wrong info there but it's usually corrected right away.

[weezur]

rare man sguro makakita faults. always my one stop reference.

[rhodem24]

heheh.. o oi! reliable jud ang wikipedia para nako.

[rodsky]

People usually think that if it's printed in some heavy compendium like The Encyclopaedia Britannica, then it must be the truth. What people don't realize is, it takes the same amount of cross-checking, resource-checking, editing and updating, to make sure that an "analog" (i.e. real-world) encyclopaedia is accurate and up-to-date, and an electronic one (i.e. Wikipedia and other wikis) up-to-date. In fact, even E.B. isnt always accurate--which is why they have this spare volume included, which contains last minute addenda and errata. Wikis are merely more convenient to edit and to browse, at least from my perspective, but if someone tells me that E. B. is more "credible" or "reliable" I'd roll my eyes.

-RODION

[philbluefox]

makaingon sad ko nga reliable jd kaaU ang WIKIPEDIA.....

[ninzska21]

its reliable for me...

[aGoi..]

reliable, yes, but i suggest that it's best to check on other sources as well. doesnt hurt to make back-up sources.