Wikipedia

[imamartian]

I love Wikipedia.... it's my bible for just about anything i want to find out.. But in the past i've heard people make comments like "Wikipedia is ****, mistakes everywhere"!!! are these people correct? do any of you know of any innaccuracies on Wikipedia?

thats why you are senseless... and believe....

oh yeah, and how many rules did that break? and where are the mods when you need them?

 

[imamartian]

so anyway, surely wikipedia is at least as accurate as the bible or the dictionary?

 

[Mickymoody]

I love Wikipedia.... it's my bible for just about anything i want to find out.. But in the past i've heard people make comments like "Wikipedia is ****, mistakes everywhere"!!! are these people correct? do any of you know of any innaccuracies on Wikipedia?

thats why you are senseless... and believe....

oh yeah, and how many rules did that break? and where are the mods when you need them?

I can go on Wiki right now, and make up anything about you, so it's inaccurate. Until it's edited or deleted.The bible, is fictionous. The dictionary is fictonous. It adds words, that were non existant. Who's job is it to enter text that doesn't exist? Innit, wassup?

 

[Space cat]

so anyone can put anything up on Wiki, until it's spotted, and altered, so not a reliable source of information

That's quite true, but wait a minute. Doesn't DIYnot work the same way? Which means that your statement above is not reliable either. Wiki and DIYnot both work on the principle of peer review. Suppose I were to post something really stupid, eg:

"Replace all your fuses with six inch nails and you'll never have to change one again."

How long do you think it would take somebody to put me right? I'd like to think that some electro-savvy mod would delete it!

 

[Ricardus]

There was a furore about Wikipedia accuracy a few years back. To quote from the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia :

Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[14] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes.[15] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[16] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[17] however, scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[18][19] A 2005 investigation in Nature (magazine) found that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[20]

Suppose I something really stupid, eg:
"Replace all your fuses with six inch nails and you'll never have to change one again."

Actually if you did replace your fuses with six inch nails I doubt you'd ever have to change them again.
You just might have to change house