wikipedia good sorce or not

DeletedUser

Seriously I use wiki - pedia, dictionary and others for everything!
Do i use it as a tool for summarised topics, yes.
Do i know it can be edited by anyone? Sure!
Do i check with other sources before coming to a conclusion, of course!

Like any other information provider, I always check other sources, this is especially true of newspapers, newsites.
 

DeletedUser

I consider wikipedia to be a good source, but mainly as a good source of sources. They seem to have information on almost everything I want to research, but I just look at the sources they list and check them out to make sure I'm getting somewhat complete and accurate information. I almost never consider one source as a "good" source; if I can't find the same, or similar, information in more than one place then I consider it to be questionable information.
 

DeletedUser

Wikipedia is a good source but it depends what your looking for. if its like really specific then forget it lol
 

DeletedUser

I consider wikipedia to be a good source, but mainly as a good source of sources. They seem to have information on almost everything I want to research, but I just look at the sources they list and check them out to make sure I'm getting somewhat complete and accurate information. I almost never consider one source as a "good" source; if I can't find the same, or similar, information in more than one place then I consider it to be questionable information.

This pretty much sums it up.
 

DeletedUser

You may not believe in the wiki but the wiki believes in you Elmyr
 

DeletedUser

I've never seen anyone bash Wikipedia and give one single specific example of why it's bad. Wikipedia is much more reliable than anyone who bashes it.

Because the information can be lost in translation from source to "textbook" so to speak.

Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source of information, but shame on those people who don't check Wikipedia's resources, which I have found to be lacking on many occasions. Overall, it's a great on-the-go source of information, but if you've got the time, find your own resources. If you think that you're the only one using Wikipedia and your professor isn't smart enough to figure out that you've blatantly plagarized a wiki entry, then the fault is all yours. It's more impressive if you dig up your own sources too. I guarantee he's going to spotlight the essay that didn't rely on the same resources that a wiki article did.
 

DeletedUser

Because the information can be lost in translation from source to "textbook" so to speak.

Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source of information, but shame on those people who don't check Wikipedia's resources, which I have found to be lacking on many occasions. Overall, it's a great on-the-go source of information, but if you've got the time, find your own resources. If you think that you're the only one using Wikipedia and your professor isn't smart enough to figure out that you've blatantly plagarized a wiki entry, then the fault is all yours. It's more impressive if you dig up your own sources too. I guarantee he's going to spotlight the essay that didn't rely on the same resources that a wiki article did.

Yeah? Well not all articles are correct, check out global warming.
 

DeletedUser


But it is what some religious people actually believe in. This article doesn't state the Virgin birth as fact, but that people believe in it and that it is mentioned in the bible as a fact, and that's hardly debatable.

wikipedia said:
Matthew, writing in Greek about the virgin birth of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos, virgin), while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the wider meaning of a young woman.

This part however shouldn't be hidden somewhere in the middle of the article, but being put at the top to show that this whole idea is based on a translation error.
 
Top