Many people have branded Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information.
Why is this, I ask.
They tell me it is because:
The information can be edited, meaning anything can be added and/or deleted.
Yes, the information can be edited, but there are also certain articles protected, meaning it can't be edited by normal members.
Also, there are mods and admins, who review the changes and either change the information back or send a pm to the person that edited the information and ask them to provide a source to prove it.
Do you think it is an unreliable source of information? Why or why not.
Last edited by Stifmeister; 12-30-2010 at 12:17 PM.
Its not, it can just be random shit that an 8 year old typed in.
Read a book.
Every time an article is edited, there are mods and admins that review it.
Every article that has been created has sources (sometimes a shit load) listed at the bottom of the page, sources which they used to create the article.
Originally Posted by ConnorCG
You can read it for general information, and for basic school papers, but for reports you should use the various citations that articles provide for the actual paper.
Wiki is reliable enough. People act like you can go in and change whole articles at the push of a button these days. And if you can edit them, they are always changed back real fast. I got through high school thanks to wikipedia. For large papers just use the citations at the bottom for yours.