Wikipedia accurate?

[sgtmac_46]

It seems that a new study suggests that Wikipedia, in certain areas of research, is as or nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10478207/?GT1=7516

While it's still a good idea to validate information obtained from Wikipedia with other sources, the allegations that it's grossly prone to error are, apparently exaggerated...at least as far as the realms of science, technology and pop-culture.

What's more, Wikipedia is trying to improve it's fact-checking technology in the future. Hopefully, improving this promising and useful research tool.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wiki is introducing some protections against the vandelization of listings thats happened. George Bush's seems to be defaced regularly every day for example. So, they are trying some limited protections while keeping the 'anyone can edit it' openness.

 

[ave_turuta]

Wiki is introducing some protections against the vandelization of listings thats happened. George Bush's seems to be defaced regularly every day for example. So, they are trying some limited protections while keeping the 'anyone can edit it' openness.

I generally never use wikipedia; particularly for historical events or people, it is a very problematic source and rather unscholarly, often lacking both seriousness and factual correctness (I have a couple of examples pertaining to the Spanish civil war in mind). As a knowledge-for-all project, I think it should be redirectioned and modified. As it is conceived today, it is not a useful tool in the humanities and certainly I would not accept it as a source in an undergrad level paper... Right now, it is too open to flaming and outright falsification of knowledge... Perhaps there should be a more stringent peer-review process or something like that? I´m not sure.

A case comes to mind: the case of Santiago Carrillo, a Spanish communist leader who was accused 10 years after the end of the civil war of having ordered the massacre of some 2 to 4,000 national fighters in Paracuellos. Noted historians such as Ian Gibson and others have analyzed the role of Carrillo in the massacres and have concluded that he was more likely than not not implicated, while noting that more research needs to be conducted. The problem with such an entry was that in the heat of discussions related to recent events in Spanish politics, the Wikipedia entry was literally vandalized. The proper thing to do is to (a) note the accusation; (b) detail the historiographical debate around the question; and (c) note the possible venues of research for future investigations that may contribute to clarify the matter. But such a task can only be completed with (a) an in-depth historiograhical knowledge of the time period and the event itself; and (b) access to the archives where the information might be stored. All tasks for professional historians, and not wikipedians....

While I do agree that in disciplines such as science and popular culture Wikipedia may very well be a very useful tool, I would very much hesitate to rely on it for historical information.

 

[arnisador]

I find it useful...as a starting point. It's certainly not reliable.

 

[Aqua4ever]

My history teacher has made it very clear to us that this is not a source to use as your only one. If you want to use it as a starting point that's fine, but unless you know the topic in and out, there is too much of a chance there are falsities or different interpertations of things...
I find it useful for fast, short responses to get a basic understanding of things.
My .02
Aqua

 

[sgtmac_46]

The usefulness of Wikipedia is it's breadth. I doubt any other research tool, researched and collected in the traditional manner, could have it's shear scope. As a jumping off point it is without peer.

As for detailed accuracy, the concern of the researcher should be finding a starting point with Wikipedia, as a good general reference, understanding that all information should be considered valid when backed up with other documentation.

But, for quick references on a multitude of topics, there is no peer.