Wikipedia, a reliable source. Do you agree?

You can really only put so much stock into anything internet that isn't from a true site of record (for instance... something like irs.gov for the internal revenue service. Something that pretty much has to be accurate). Wikipedia is great for factoids and sort of personal fun research that is of no great consequence, but you can only trust it so much and I wouldn't rely on it for anything that was important.

BA: For stuff like bands, I think wikipedia is fine, but it doesn't concern me to know much about artists that I listen to. They do music, I do my job, you do your job, it's just a career. At the same time when I do get curious about something I usually use that site or allmusic.com for the more technical/credits based stuff.

Wikipedia may not be absolutely perfect. Sure, it has some faults. However, for basic information, I think it's pretty dead on, considering most of the information comes from reliable and actual news sources. You can see the references most times, as the links are provided. For whatever reason, I've always felt that Wiki receives a lot of abuse it doesn't deserve. It's a very useful tool that always helps me firm up facts or make sure I get the spelling of names right.

While the information can be changed by anyone, I've yet to see absolute bogus information last for very long. Therefore, I feel it's a fairly reliable source.

Wikipedia is probably the most useful website on the internet. There is an article on everything you can think of, with tons of information on it, and the majority of it is all accurate. People exaggerate how innacurate it is. Yes, it can be modified by anyone, but it has a very hard-working staff and all vandilization and false information is removed almost instantly. Besides, if you don't trust wikipedia itself, it is at least a good place to go to find other sources on the issue. Most or all of the information in the articles has a link to the source that it came from.

I use Wikipedia all of the time. I have yet to come across something that was wrong or was a big deal.

You have to cite your sources or it gets a huge banner at the top telling you the information may not be correct, and it warns you when you come across information that may be opinionated or just speculation. I think the way they run it is just about perfect and I believe it is one of the more reliable sources on the internet.

I know anyone can edit it, so I tested that. I edited a page that isn't really popular and when I put a bunch of crap that was wrong, it was removed within 15 minutes. Then when I put stuff that sounded right, but was still wrong, it was marked for everyone to see that the information I put is not reliable.

Personally, I think it's a great site to gather tons of information on all aspects of just about anything you want. It's just as reliable for music as anything else.

Hm, it depends on what we're looking up. If I'm doing a research paper then no, I most likely won't use Wikipedia (although I might skim it and click on the sources). But if I'm looking up a band (especially their discography), I feel pretty confident about using it, even though they rarely have everything about the band on there.

Last year someone in my class went on Wikipedia and changed George Washington's birthday. The error didn't get noticed and fixed for over three months! So anyone who might have needed that info and just decided to use Wikipedia instead of another source would have had the wrong information.

BA: For metal & related bands (like dark ambient), I use Encyclopedia Metallum or Spirit of Metal.

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/

But when I mean "information", I'm talking stuff like discography and band members. I don't really care about the other stuff unless I really enjoy the band. I'll usually go to their official website/forums for extra info.

In my reading of it I find it very reliable. There are informed persons checking the page who help to "police" the content. In checking some Wikipedia page histories I have seen changes made noting "an inaccuracy." Although, even in those cases it was not blatant. I have entered some content on some of my favorite bands about 3 years ago that still exists. And the content was for some very popular bands concerning their some of the most acclaimed albums.

Yeah I suppose someone could purposely enter misleading or misrepresenting information that would remain until discovered.

Wikipedia has improved greatly recently. It may not be considered as reliable source since, just like you said, anyone can edit it. But, it is a good start for your research process. Just whenever you want to use some idea from Wikipedia, take a look at the footnote and check the citations there. Those citations can be reliable sources.

Hey Dudette! :) How be thee?

Actually, I trust in Wiki's edited fidelity. Most people may not exactly consider it as a highly reliable source, and neither do I, it might not contain precise solid articles or documents as they can be modified by anyone with falsely derivative information. And so I use it to get the gist of the what I'm looking for, a general sense or idea is good enough for me.

BQ: Encyclopedia Metallum, Last.Fm.

I do agree with you that it can be a very useful website and can be very handy sometimes. However I wouldn't take everything on it as fact either. Although if reading about a band I would usually assume that the article would have been edited by a fan of theirs so I guess that most of it would be fairly accurate.

BQ: Allmusic.com. Fairly good to find information on bands that are even obscure and well known and is much more reliable than wikipedia.

http://www.allmusic.com/

Hey, Dudette! I'm diggin' the Snoopy avatar!

I agree, although I think Wikipedia is one of the safer resources to use. It's always a good idea to carry some skepticism around, especially on the internet, where stupidity and ignorance spreads like a plague.

BQ- Music- whatever I happen to run across. No one site exclusively.

Fact checking- Snopes