So is wikipedia a valid source?

[Desert_Eagle]

Recently I noticed that wikipedia is now GenocideAlives preferred source for most topics. In debating with him I asked him to show any factual inaccuracies in any of the articles I posted which he of course was unable to demonstrate. I suppose that lead him to actually start reading the articles he said were invalid at face value, and now he uses the "invalid" source all the time.

It seems to me that the only people who claim wikipedia is an invalid source is:

1) People who can't be bothered to read wikipedia
2) The particular article disagrees with their beliefs (regardless of it's factual accuracy)

[LinkTheGameFreak]

yes it is a valid source provided that the current version was not vandalized - the best way to check is to compare recent versions

[GenocideAlive]

Recently I noticed that wikipedia is now GenocideAlives preferred source for most topics. In debating with him I asked him to show any factual inaccuracies in any of the articles I posted which he of course was unable to demonstrate. I suppose that lead him to actually start reading the articles he said were invalid at face value, and now he uses the "invalid" source all the time.

It seems to me that the only people who claim wikipedia is an invalid source is:

1) People who can't be bothered to read wikipedia
2) The particular article disagrees with their beliefs (regardless of it's factual accuracy)
If you'd bothered to read the context of my statements before posting up your idiotic banter, you'd have educated yourself without making a space-wasting thread.

When it comes to matters of common knowledge, eg the explanation of the appeal-to-spite fallacy, Wikipedia is fine for a source. However, when it comes to anything in which an expert would either be needed or superior (science, math, etc.) Wikipedia should not be quoted as a source. Instead, you should elect to quote those that Wikipedia sources.

Wikipedia sources reliable science articles.
Science articles are accurate.
Wikipedia is accurate.

Hopefully you understand why the above proof is false. Hint: Fallacy of Equivocation. Because if you don't, I'm not going to explain it! :)

[SarahK]

Wikipedia is NEVER reliable for anything in the least bit controversial.

And quoting on forums for controversial stuff is just a joke, we all know you edit the article first before linking, Desert rat.. :rolleyes:

[LinkTheGameFreak]

If you'd bothered to read the context of my statements before posting up your idiotic banter, you'd have educated yourself without making a space-wasting thread.

When it comes to matters of common knowledge, eg the explanation of the appeal-to-spite fallacy, Wikipedia is fine for a source. However, when it comes to anything in which an expert would either be needed or superior (science, math, etc.) Wikipedia should not be quoted as a source. Instead, you should elect to quote those that Wikipedia sources.

Wikipedia sources reliable science articles.
Science articles are accurate.
Wikipedia is accurate.

Hopefully you understand why the above proof is false. Hint: Fallacy of Equivocation. Because if you don't, I'm not going to explain it! :)

I'd stand to argue that for the most part, due to good sysops and mods, Wikipedia is able to curb false information. Granted, there are better sources to write a paper from (like the science articles they reference at wikipedia) but for a general source of knowledge to use as examples in arguments, wikipedia is acceptable :tup:

Wikipedia is NEVER reliable for anything in the least bit controversial.
wikipedia's sysops do a good job at keeping articles neutral, so controversial subjects are presented from both sides fairly on the most part

edit: as per desert eagle editing articles before linking... IMO that's fucking low

[SarahK]

due to good sysops and mods, Wikipedia is able to curb false information

...

wikipedia's sysops do a good job at keeping articles neutral
www.wikitruth.info (http://wikitruth.info)

Wikitruth - "Is Wikipedia reliable?" (http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Is_Wikipedia_reliable%3F)

www.wikipediareview.com (http://wikipediareview.com)

www.wikipedophilia.com (http://wikipedophilia.com)

The Guardian - "Can you trust Wikipedia" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html)

"Why Wikipedia sucks" (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html)

"The Great Failure of Wikipedia" (http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000060.html)

"Swastikopedia" (http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000100.html)

Elvira van Noort, Mail & Guardian (South Africa) - "Can you trust Wikipedia?" (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=255920&area=/insight/insight__national/)

More:
www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Press_reports (http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Press_reports)
or
www.wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=23 (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=23)

[Neo]

lol.

This is sad.

Sarah, do you really think those sites are any more valid then Wikipedia itself? I can create a site called "saraksucks.com" and list reasons, but that doesn't make it so.

omg, the founder of wikipedia has porn connections zOMG WTF.

That rant about swastikopedia or whatever was fucking moronic. It says right there when your editing or creating a page that if your going to give pissy over people editing what you created to not even both posting it.

"why wikipedia sucks" is a poor link, given that its taken out of context.

Jason Scoot seems to like to bitch often because he doesn't get his way, are you related to him by any chance?

Bah.

This is closed. Not going to evolve into anything decent anyways.

-Neo