Is it a reliable source of information?
Just light relief from all this morals talk, I guess.
Just light relief from all this morals talk, I guess.
[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER]
Wikipedia
-
yes
-
Not always[SIZE=2]The Voice of Reason[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love." - Augustine.[/SIZE] -
I don't think it is very reliable and I gave up on using it after reading many "facts" that I knew to be incorrect or to not tell the full truth of a matter. It is a good idea and can be a good source of information but one needs to be very careful about taking things from it to be correct especially on topics that are mainly opinion based for there is a very large possibility that the information will be biased. Of course whatever information you read will be prone to bias because a human wrote it and said human has opinions, heritage etc and the good old saying that the history books are written by the victor.
Also as anyone can enter information it takes away a lot of its reliability and although there are "safeguards" in place one has to be careful when taking information from it making sure they have at least a couple more credible sources that show the same information from people who have different views, different heritages etcetera.
Another thing that links into the fact that it can be edited by anybody is that you don't know who submitted the information. I'm not one to accept information readily if I know nothing of the source. For example if somebody came upto me in the street and told me that the a country had just begun testing nuclear weapons I'm not likely to believe them for I don't know how they gained said information and I do not know anything of them as a source. Now if a the foreign minister said the same information and it was backed up by evidence and others from other political stances could present evidence to show the same information I am more likely to believe what they say.[CENTER]This is a gift it comes with a price
Who is the lamb and who is the knife
Midas is king and he holds me so tight
And turns me to gold in the sunlight - Florence + The Machine, Rabbit Heart
I'm not a misanthrope, but I can utterly empathise with them.
[/CENTER] -
Not for political articles. Certain prominent organizations know to give a false information from time to time."Sometimes it seems pity that Noah and his party didn't miss the boat."
-
Not all the information is reliable, but there is some good information.:o
-
Anyone can change the information. thats why it can never be 100% reliable
-
Not always. It's really easy for someone to change something. My teachers always tell us not to use it and usually take points off if we site it as a source for a paper. But there is some good information on there. And funny articles.
-
Wait wait. I think we're all forgetting that while Wikipedia is 100% fully editable by anyone, it's also monitored by people who are in charge of running the page itself. Certain groups of people who are actually dedicated to researching everything monitor almost every main page and any time a fact comes up that is unsourced, they tag it "citation needed" which are the statements you need to watch out for, as they can be misleading or completely, 100% untrue.
Other then that, yes, it is. Just watch for the ones that say "citation needed" and check all of the source tags(the little [1], [2]'s) next to all sentences or paragraphs, claims, whatever[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." [/CENTER] -
No, it is not.
-
Great point. Everything I said, you just proved wrong. Thank you.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." [/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
Is it a reliable source of information?
Just light relief from all this morals talk, I guess.
Some of it is reliable and some of it isn't. Its up to you to take the information and decide what to do with it. You can either accept something or try and find more information on it from other sources. I personally enjoy taking information from anywhere I can and augmenting it to my current understandings. Be optimistic, knowledge is nothing without wisdom. -
Wikipedia for the most part is quite reliable. However, people are free to edit the info at anytime, resulting in quite a bit of fiction and opinion.
-
tomski wrote:
For example if somebody came upto me in the street and told me that the a country had just begun testing nuclear weapons I'm not likely to believe them for I don't know how they gained said information and I do not know anything of them as a source. Now if a the foreign minister said the same information and it was backed up by evidence and others from other political stances could present evidence to show the same information I am more likely to believe what they say.
So, basically, you just said, "I won't believe someone if they walk up to me and tell me something. However, if a well known guy says the same thing and has evidence, I'll believe him."She kept lookin' at her watch (Doesn't matter; had sex)
But I cried the whole time (Doesn't matter; had sex)
I think she might've been a racist (Doesn't matter; had sex)
She put a bag on my head (Still counts) -
Wikipedia is good if you don't want political based stuff. :cool:
Wikipedia sabotaging on the other hand is funny. My high school got attacked....it was hilarious. Considering most of it was true.[LEFT]I’m psychotic synchypnotic
I got my blue burners and phonic
I’m psychotic synchypnotic
I got my brand electronic [/LEFT] -
Nikephoros wrote:
So, basically, you just said, "I won't believe someone if they walk up to me and tell me something. However, if a well known guy says the same thing and has evidence, I'll believe him."
No, that is not at all what I said, why don't you read it again?
tomski wrote:
For example if somebody came upto me in the street and told me that the a country had just begun testing nuclear weapons I'm not likely to believe them for I don't know how they gained said information and I do not know anything of them as a source. Now if a the foreign minister said the same information and it was backed up by evidence and others from other political stances could present evidence to show the same information I am more likely to believe what they say.
That sentence says that if yes, a well-known person who is more likely to have credible sources that some random person on the street and there is evdience presented from other credible sources, then I am more likely to believe what they say.[CENTER]This is a gift it comes with a price
Who is the lamb and who is the knife
Midas is king and he holds me so tight
And turns me to gold in the sunlight - Florence + The Machine, Rabbit Heart
I'm not a misanthrope, but I can utterly empathise with them.
[/CENTER] -
tomski wrote:
No, that is not at all what I said, why don't you read it again?
That sentence says that if yes, a well-known person who is more likely to have credible sources that some random person on the street and there is evdience presented from other credible sources, then I am more likely to believe what they say.
... No, it doesn't. It says the you don't believe the stranger because you don't know him, but you believe the other guy 'cause you know who he is and he has evidence.She kept lookin' at her watch (Doesn't matter; had sex)
But I cried the whole time (Doesn't matter; had sex)
I think she might've been a racist (Doesn't matter; had sex)
She put a bag on my head (Still counts) -
I love wiki
it got loadz of random crap on it like my town 
-
Nikephoros wrote:
... No, it doesn't. It says the you don't believe the stranger because you don't know him, but you believe the other guy 'cause you know who he is and he has evidence.
It doesn't say that I believe because I know who they are and they have evidence. I said more likely. Yes, that does sound like a technicality but it is quite an important one. The Prime Minister comes upto me and says something doesn't mean I believe him even if he does have evidence but I will be more likely to believe him than a stranger where I know nothing of him or the evidence. I also stated that I would like there to be other people from different stances that also had evidence to support the matter for me to believe it.
Secondly, the way in which you typed it made it sound like I believe people because they are well-known and have evidence. That isn't how something is accepted by me. My science teacher tried to make us believe theory as if it were fact but I refused to believe it as fact because although I know her and she has evidence it was only a theory and in my head I made the decision that theory isnt fact and so I shan't just believe it as fact. My head has it's own part toplay in wether I believe something and in the end I make up my own decisions.
(If you are wondering how I will pass exams on the topic of which this scientific theory is based then I'll tell you that I accept it as a theory and learnt the theory so that when it coms up in an exam I can give the answer they want but still know in my head that it is theory and not fact.)[CENTER]This is a gift it comes with a price
Who is the lamb and who is the knife
Midas is king and he holds me so tight
And turns me to gold in the sunlight - Florence + The Machine, Rabbit Heart
I'm not a misanthrope, but I can utterly empathise with them.
[/CENTER] -
tomski wrote:
I don't think it is very reliable and I gave up on using it after reading many "facts" that I knew to be incorrect or to not tell the full truth of a matter. It is a good idea and can be a good source of information but one needs to be very careful about taking things from it to be correct especially on topics that are mainly opinion based for there is a very large possibility that the information will be biased. Of course whatever information you read will be prone to bias because a human wrote it and said human has opinions, heritage etc and the good old saying that the history books are written by the victor.
Also as anyone can enter information it takes away a lot of its reliability and although there are "safeguards" in place one has to be careful when taking information from it making sure they have at least a couple more credible sources that show the same information from people who have different views, different heritages etcetera.
Another thing that links into the fact that it can be edited by anybody is that you don't know who submitted the information. I'm not one to accept information readily if I know nothing of the source. For example if somebody came upto me in the street and told me that the a country had just begun testing nuclear weapons I'm not likely to believe them for I don't know how they gained said information and I do not know anything of them as a source. Now if a the foreign minister said the same information and it was backed up by evidence and others from other political stances could present evidence to show the same information I am more likely to believe what they say.
Exactly.[SIZE=2]The Voice of Reason[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love." - Augustine.[/SIZE]
-
Share