"How Much Do You Trust Wikipedia?" Topic

Often a good place to start.

Usually pretty reliable when you need non-partisan obsession--publication data on obscure books and such. But the more political a topic is in the modern sense, the more careful you have to be.

If I knew of a better quick general reference, I'd recommend it.

It is very much dependent upon the topic.

depends on the scale. Is 10 good or bad?

A mixed source. Some strange entries in sections. Sometimes good links to original sources.

Thought same 1 or 10 good? But anyway I am middle of the road so doesn't matter. Anything non political of history back 200 years is good. New subjects are very suspect.
It's too easy to be sabotaged.

6. Can be good for general info on a subject, but you have to watch out for topics with political or religious overtones/undertones. The source links tend to be a little more helpful.

For what I use it (generally factual, not controversial) usually pretty good.

10 is good.

Bo Derek was not a 1!

I find it a good source, particularly for starting a research venture. I appreciate this largely accurate and readily available source of information. To that end I donate a small annual amount in the hope that this noncommercialized source of information continues.

I wonder how many of you in TMP land make a donation to Wikipedia?

I use it as a quick source on historical events prior to 1950. But I look at the "Talk" button if something looks "hinky." I use it as a entry point for more detailed examination of a topic.

I've done a little editing of a few articles and am a registered and approved editor. And I've donated along the way.

Jim

I think it's a good source for general information on a topic. I wouldn't write a research paper with them, but they can point you in the right direction.

Deucey guessing in our age your right, but that scale now seems reversed and 1 is the best

Agree it is a good place to start and some entries are more reliable than others – helpful when there are references and links

As to scales, in Japanese Number one (ichi ban 一番) refers to the very best

If ten is best, I vote nine. It is a much better resource tool than it was in the early days. Their editing process actually works quite well. I also find it useful for it's bibliography, footnotes, links and photographs.

I'll confess I find the demand for "on line references" troubling. They seem to prefer Internet rumors to actually looking something up in a book. (Yes, I've created Wikipedia articles myself--but not lately.)

There are, sadly, no perfect sources. I'd rate it well above several old and prestigious newspapers, for instance.

Its a good starting spot.

Agree about anything topical and controversial. But I have looked hard at articles on several topics on which I am an expert, and found them solid. I encourage students to use it but warn them about frequent editings.