First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Wikipedia
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
All the wikipedia articles I've read were pretty reliable. The sources were books, news articles, and credible websites. Not all the wikipedia articles cite youtube.
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Wikipedia bias? Doesnt people can edit easily?
2395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / here on earth...h...
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
hm...?
141349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Someplace
Offline
Posted 6/18/09 , edited 6/18/09
of course wikipedia's not reliable.. but good for general information.. also any person can edit it...
2109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Some where in Sin...
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Wikipedia was never accurate as writers then to be bias to what they believe in.

The writers are human being thus they have their alternative view points.

The best thing to do is to look at all the sources then do evaluation for yourself^^
67888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 6/19/09
I don't believe that the WIkipedia moderators are being politically biased when editing an article so it will go in their favor. I do believe though that lots of WIkipedia information is like this, because it's mostly user-added content and you have to be really critical when it comes to where the information is cited from.

I hardly use Wikipedia for projects which requires a lot of information, but if there's something I wonder about and I want tolook up, I just go to WIkipedia to learn.
Posted 6/19/09
I think that it really depends on WHAT you're actually looking for on wikipedia. Political and historical incidents certainly aren't reliable. But articles about these subjects are never really unbiased or truthfully reliable which implies that it's not just a Wikipedia problem.
Also, I think that most arguments about "Wikipedia" being not truthful enough isn't the best argument because other websites aren't all that correct and unbiased either. For most forum-goers it's just a convenient way to label every post with wikipedia as its source as unreliable, or even untrue which is completely stupid. Check out the article, look at the sources, what subject it is, and how it's written and you'll easily find out whether it's biased, or reliable at all. For basic information Wikipedia still does its job perfectly well, especially when touching the scientific, biological subjects. But I wouldn't go there to get political, historical, religion and anime "facts".
311298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/20/09
uhmm..our university doesnt encourage or should i say strongly discourages students to use wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Some information encoded or written in the said site are sometimes inaccurate and fallible. the traditional use of the library (books) is still the best way to get information. ü
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.