"How Much Do You Trust Wikipedia?" Topic

1 to 10

For me it's a 9.

(Although I have seen a sketchy post on an obscure topic once that was very biased.)

I would never use it for a dissertation but generally find it accurate enough.
For General use a 9
For anything IMPORTANT a 0

9 sounds about right. As dynaman says, not a primary source, and it's dicey on the edge of politics. But mostly the articles are grown by fanatics who care about the subjects under discussion, and I've only once caught a blatant insertion of invented content.

8

8

Articles are supposed to be referenced, and the editing points out when additional referencing is needed. In general, good standards are required and policed. Despite the myth about content, anybody can't edit anything.

The dynamic nature of the medium puts some people off. If you are used to a book encyclopedia of unchanging "fact", it might seem odd. Lots of people have access and lots of people can post. But also lots of people are watching, so issues in writing can be caught and corrected easily.

With Dynaman8789 and robert piepenbrink, I don't spend a lot of time reading the articles, but usually go to the bottom of the page for the references and link out. The lists of examples in articles are also very useful for research work.

If I want a quick reference and not too worried about the details, especially if I looking up something Wiki will be confirming my memory and not really teaching me anything new. I do not consider it a completely reliable source and would verify somewhere else trusted before treating it like a trusted source.

I am pretty much a 9.5. I dont use it as a sole source, but generally its facts pan out.

You may as well ask how much do you trust anything you read on the internet. At least with Wikipedia you know that it is largely funded by small individual donations and not mega corporations or the government.

I give it a 9. Nothing gets a 10; always best to have some skepticism. And since it is a nonprofit mostly funded by the public from $30 USD USD contributions or less; on the really IMPORTANT stuff I give it a 9+.

I don't use it myself, but friends who have used it to find the definition of words, have come back with examples of whatever the word was, but not it's definition.
So, I give it a 5.

8-9 … so far …

I would give it a 9

I can't rank on a scale like that. I'll go with Dynaman's rating. I generally expect Wikipedia to be correct, but I'm a 'trust but verify' type. For fun stuff, like hobby related research, it's fine. For anything serious (where safety, for example, is on the line) I can refer to Wikipedia for a start point but will dig deeper to primary sources when needed.

7-9. Depends on the topic. Some topics clearly attract warring agendas.
But as a quick hit on basic facts, I think it's fine.

7-ish. It's a really good first step in serious research and a quick way to figure out what an obscure reference is about (ie. The War of Jenkins Ear was a lot bigger than two guy fighting over an ear.)

It's a good place to start. There are also references to link to. It's an 8 for me.

8-9. A good place for a generally quick overview but no substitute for fully researching something.

I just wish people here would launch a coordinated effort at correcting Wikipedia about the things the complain about being wrong!

It depends upon the type of information I'm after. If it's technical in nature, description of a specific battle, details about a specific unit's battle history, or finding out which ships were in a specific class and details about them, I give it a 9+. If I want to read about what caused a specific historical event, I usually will double check it so maybe a 7. If it's anything sociologically oriented, I definitely will double check it and treat it as maybe a 4-5. I agree with other posters that the references at the end of the article can be jewels of additional information.

Yea, about a 9 for many/most things, but some checking does need to be done, since sometimes data is just way, way off.

I often wonder if it's due to teachers or others trying to set traps for their students for various assignments, etc., when the data is so far off as to be ridiculous.

9 Don't use it much but have been satisfied with what I found in it.

If it has anything possible thats political 0, but mostly look up old military history so 7

I find it most useful for looking up Band discographies before I go on a spending spree, so probably a 9. As other people have said it's a good enough starting point when looking for guff.

General history: 9
Military history: 7
Battlefields: 3

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and (re history pages) is not up-to-date regards what has been published (which is not, itself, up-to-date regards research being done). It is more unreliable the faster changing the topic. Battlefield interpretation is one of the fastest moving (due to advances in archaeological equipment and methodology) and Wikipedia is way behind the curve.

Unfortunately the articles are written by amateur historians who have often not read the latest research (then dig their heals in behind their precious theories).

Phil

9, all the articles that I read are accurately footnoted. I also donate to keep it commercial free.

History 7
Vehicles 8
Mil equipment 7
Battle info 7
Politics -2

History 8
Military Equipment / Vehicles 8
Battle of … 6
Politics 0

About as far as I can throw them

Well you can include most of the media out there today too. More opinion than facts, etc. And it seems almost everything publish has some bias. Or worse an agenda, narrative, spin, etc.

Mark Twain said something like, "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. And if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."

About 8 out of 10, most articles seem to be fairly neutral.

They list their sources better than most media. Trust but verify.

Wolfhag