Wikipedia: Reliable or Not?

[Stifmeister]

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.

[CRU5TY]

I'm pretty sure it's unreliable.

[N22]

Shouldn't this be a debate? And yes, I do think their information is reliable.

[[MPGH]Ghost]

Its not, it can just be random shit that an 8 year old typed in.
Read a book.

[Corndog]

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.

[CRU5TY]

Shouldn't this be a debate? And yes, I do think their information is reliable.

fuck you, it was unreliable five years ago and it is now.

Its not, it can just be random shit that an 8 year old typed in.
Read a book.

indeed.

[Stifmeister]

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.

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.

Yes, that's true.

[[MPGH]Killian]

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.

It looks like Connor beat me to the punch once again.

[Stifmeister]

I'm pretty sure it's unreliable.

Why is it unreliable? Did you read the post that came with the thread?

[CRU5TY]

Why is it unreliable? Did you read the post that came with the thread?

If it were reliable, you would be allowed to use it to write papers

And you can't. Plus i don't even use wikipedia.

[Corndog]

Although I have provided an answer that basically ends the argument, CRUSTY will continue to troll and Subpoena will continue to buy it.

[Heartview]

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.

[CRU5TY]

Nah I'm done with this thread.

@derpedderp or whatever the fuck - If you got through high school because of wikipedia you must be either really fucking lazy, or really fucking stupid.

[Heartview]

Nah I'm done with this thread.

@derpedderp or whatever the fuck - If you got through high school because of wikipedia you must be either really fucking lazy, or really fucking stupid.

Just lazy. Like all your attempts at trolling.

[CRU5TY]

Just lazy. Like all your attempts at trolling.

I know, right?