Can anyone tell me why Wikipedia is constantly bashed in this forum?

Many articles on Wikipedia are well researched, ,well written, and include thorough citations. I find it a very useful source. However, people often make the error of considering it a definitive source -- "it's true because wikipedia says so". Information on Wikipedia must be treated as skeptically as any other internet source. Can you verify the information using other sources? Do the citations point to credible, verifiable sources?

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become a haven for people deliberately posting misinformation. That's a shame--because it was actually a great idea--and when it started was also surprisingly accruate.

It still is fairly reliable if you're looking for information on topics that aren't politically chrged or otherwise "hot-button" issues. But, even there, its become a target for pranksters who put in false information because they are immature enough to think its funny.

Look--I know that the people at Wikipedia are working to fix the system. And I hope they do. But for now, I don't use it--its simply become too unreliable. And, for the same reason, I've instructed my students (history) not to rely on it or use it as a citation, evenin informal papers. I've jsut had too many miss questions on tests because the've gotten the wrong information from Wikipedia.

because there's a big spam campaign running

against people with independent knowledge ...

usually such parrots expose by their foxtv twitter -

barely trained often. it goes about like 'warble warble,

never ever, warble, read blogs or wiki, warble-warble."

a funded flood, loosely affiliated to creationists and

lobbyists trying to keep the usa tech in stoneage, also.

free information flow is the declared enemy of them all.

just wonder how patriotic they are indeed to waste so

many resources of a rich country. which could have build

space stations 3 decades ago already, subsequently

3 decades ahead in technology - I mean apart of sabotage,

espionage and destruction - usa keeps that superbowl still.

but where's the apollo spirit ? why can't california be world

leader in clean energy production instead as weapon smith

maybe also because students fear to read 'the wrong books'?

the wikipedia is indeed a bit like a computer and

vulnerable to 'viri' thus as every registered user can

add articles - but a team of lectors reviews quite swiftly -

in doubt controversical issues are flagged as 'pending

much more service than you get through the selections

in public libraries - and that's what wiki is - just a library.

but - (hi neil) sponsored by nobody - unlike many "news" :)

it's a good roadmap for where to find more even knowledge

- almost a real encyclopedia - maybe not sufficient yet for a

diploma (although that's kinda wiki annoyance too perhaps,

that is some people still try and use it for blunt plagiarism)

but underway sure always a good help - until you might need

deeply specialized stuff & infos directly from the laboratories.

Its not a valid source, though there is alot of good information there it isnt reliable. Someone could say the sky is green or the grass is red on that site (yes a little exagerated but its an example) and there is people that would try to use that as an argument, because they found it on Wikipedia then it MUST be true.

i think of i'd basically permit it circulate. She feels like the shape of individual who basically ought to be bashing something or yet another, and for that reason, that's the whole state of Mich! Has she at distinctive situations moved around the state to to be so adamant in her opinion of it? And would not she have something extra exciting or exciting happening in her lifestyles to submit approximately on facebook? all of it basically sounds slightly petty and unhappy on her section, so permit her circulate on her merry way as quickly as the provider is over and pay it no techniques. You....and Michigan....are lots extra constructive off devoid of her negativity!

People don't LIKE to be wrong & info on Wikipedia CAN be altered.

Information on Widipedia may be opinion instead of fact. It's not like Webster's Dictionary or a set of encyclopedia's where the information is checked and confirmed.

Sometimes it provides some important information. But it is very political and very subjective, and I don't even try to right to them, to correct them on different subjects.

Wikipedia is very bad! It is not reliable. There are lots of vandalism. Anyone may vandalize it.

I have found lots and lots of mistakes there.

DO NOT RELY ON WIKIPEDIA!

public schools do not like the site because it makes indoctrination harder for the liberal to misinform children.