Wikipedia-love or hate?

[PeterJB]

Frankly i don't even remember what i saw yellow-orange dot.

Don't think it was Mars as i would have assumed Mars would be more orange-red.

Yellow orange would suggest Titan. Though chances are it was actually Saturn as it would completely outshine any other nearby objects, and at Titan's size their probably wouldn't be any way of distinguishing colour. It would just be a white, star-like dot.

 

[SkierPS3]

It's pretty credible. False information is few and far between, and fake info posted by jokersters are usually really obvious (ie. "Captain America won WWII by punching Hitler into a black hole"-- yes, I saw that on one page). I can't source it for projects but it's good for learning or familiarizing myself with a topic.

 

[Machate-man]

It's a handy source; I use it for when I need to know something fast.
I do not, however, approve of it for School-related activities (essays, research papers, ect) since teachers specifically look for any traces of copy-and-paste via wikipedia

 

[Beeblebrox237]

It's a handy source; I use it for when I need to know something fast.
I do not, however, approve of it for School-related activities (essays, research papers, ect) since teachers specifically look for any traces of copy-and-paste via wikipedia

I use it for general reference but would never copy and paste from anywhere.

 

[shmogt]

Wiki is good I would trust what it says. Usually any fake stuff isn't important anyway. They changed their system to 24hr wait and it has to be verified sort of thing before it updates to the world. I no this because I got banned once for writing boobs every other word on Pamela Anderson's page and that's what they told me lol

 

[PHCharls]

I used Wikipedia for my research, homework . So i liked it

 

[dxm8975]

It's pretty credible. False information is few and far between, and fake info posted by jokersters are usually really obvious (ie. "Captain America won WWII by punching Hitler into a black hole"-- yes, I saw that on one page). I can't source it for projects but it's good for learning or familiarizing myself with a topic.

The Wikipedia is quite a credible source as the media itself advocates to be a large encycropedia comprehensive with almost everything observed and handed down to the next generation on this planet, as long as the tips are provided rightly it will stay on the same way.

However, putting too much confidence in the media that all the tips are equally correct on display is dangerous to you as some of the informations might be randomly/errornesuoly) entered, not knowing that it's only a performance of their erudition.

 

[Liquid]

I love it. It's not always 100% accurate, but that's what being an active member of the community* or being a moderator is for. It's always a useful deluge diving into Wikipedia if I fancy a snoop at some of the things I'm interested in; Politics/History of the Government of the UK, Cars, BTCC/Driver Profiles and so on. I have taken things from the website and used as literary sources before now, but only via authentication of references.

*I edit and maintain some of the lesser known pages that interest me.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

It's a handy source; I use it for when I need to know something fast.
I do not, however, approve of it for School-related activities (essays, research papers, ect) since teachers specifically look for any traces of copy-and-paste via wikipedia

Don't copy and paste! At least source the info.

The reason many schools view it as a non-credible site is because anyone can go and edit it to their liking. Meaning that there is a risk that some info is not factual. Which I can understand.

For other than school related resources it is terrific, I use it mainly for game reviews to see if I should by the game I am looking into.

 

[AMCNUT]

It's pretty credible. False information is few and far between, and fake info posted by jokersters are usually really obvious (ie. "Captain America won WWII by punching Hitler into a black hole"-- yes, I saw that on one page). I can't source it for projects but it's good for learning or familiarizing myself with a topic.

This. Absolutely.

It's great for a broad introduction to a topic in layman's terms, which is great if said topic is something a little heavy. But the best stuff is usually the links at the bottom. You can reliably assume that at least 1 or 2 out of however many t here are will be decent places to start more academic research from.

It's all in how you use it, I think.

 

[Krog]

On my iPhone, you can scroll to the left and search the phone. There are also search google and search wikipedia options. I use the latter quite a lot. It is much more credible and professionally written than others sites I've been to, and there is no bias at all which is a big plus.

So yes, ()wikipedia() is great

 

[Villain]

Wikipedia is like a bridge to useful sources.

Love it! <3

 

[gogatrs]

I tend to use it as a starting point.
Get brief background info then work from there.

One example of it being a bad source is how once a couple of my friends were doing a research paper on the Coliseum. One changed "In the Coliseum, gladiators compete in..." to "In the Coliseum, strippers compete in..." Then another switched it to "In the Coliseum, male strippers compete in..." which eventually led to "In the Coliseum, gay male strippers compete in..."

 

[Machate-man]

Don't copy and paste! At least source the info.

The reason many schools view it as a non-credible site is because anyone can go and edit it to their liking. Meaning that there is a risk that some info is not factual. Which I can understand.

For other than school related resources it is terrific, I use it mainly for game reviews to see if I should by the game I am looking into.

I specifically don't copy-paste; those less capable than me in my school do, so that is why they care to mention it

 

[RTSolvalou]

I use it before using the google, but know that it's a bit of a joke and has questionable text here and there.

I know the John Delorean or DMC article has flaws in the story provided for one. Few people would know the absolute truth, but some of what is written is obviously a lie/biased wikipedia author.

 

[illuminationx]

Love it. Using it now as we speak. Or type. Really gotta get back to work.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Wikipedia is the sparknotes of the encyclopedia.

And it did help me out a lot on papers.

But it's a more important to use it as a directory as another poster says instead of as an actual source.

 

[Camaroyenko]

Eh, I just don't know if I can trust it. Although I still do use it all the time... O_o