[Kosh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm


At least when it comes to science.

[WMCoolmon]

Very recently, I conducted a study of the Wikipedia's accuracy when it comes to politics. About three minutes ago, in fact.

For this study, I chose a random political figure on which to base my study - the page on George W. Bush. Curiously enough, I noted that the page was locked to prevent vandalism. Curious about what such vandalism might be, I went back a few edits.

I was not able to verify whether the tiled penises were, in fact, an accurate representation of Bush's own equipment, however, the lack of detailed citation makes it seem rather unlikely to me that such pictures were taken from an accurate source.

[Kamikaze]

Does it really matter? Wikipedia, whether it's more or less accurate than a conventional source, has a lot of flexibility in article content than most other sources that makes it worthwhile. Wikipedia isn't tied down by physical space constraints (of a dead-tree encyclopedia) or subject limitations (e.g. pop culture, obscure technical information, etc.). It's also considerably more accessible than a dead tree encylopedia nowadays.

WMCoolmon: That's not a study, that's an anecdote.

[an0n]

Have you ever seen a full set of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

It's like 40 volumes and costs thousands of pounds.

No search function - No usey.

[WMCoolmon]

Lol.

It's called an "index".

[Kosh]

That is so 20th century.

[karajorma]

When you're dealing with anything geeky Wikipedia is pretty accurate. There are enough contributors who know physics, chemistry or computing well enough to make sure there aren't many hideous errors. As the study shows they did about as well as Britannica in that respect. As soon as you leave science or science fiction the quality plummets though.

[CP5670]

I use wikipedia all the time for its math and CS articles, but it was also extremely useful last semester for this religious fundamentalism class I did.

[an0n]

Wikipedia is less a compendium of human knowledge and more a mass of human understanding.

It might not be technically accurate on everything, but it documents things in a way that's easy to read and which gets the fundamentals across better than a more standard, more comprehensive text.

[aldo_14]

Wikipedia is never wrong, it's reality that is often inaccurate.  Oh, wait, that's the guide, isn't it......

Wikipedias' strengths and failings can be illustrated as follows;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre (as an example)

It's useful as a source for references, but it's scarcely reliable on its own.

[karajorma]

I find Wikipedia very useful as a first goto place. It gives me enough depth most of the time to refine a google search to find the real details on the matter (and occassionally has a link that does the same).

A minute spent on wikipedia at the start of the research into a topic generally tells me more than the same amount of time spent on any other site.

It's also very useful for double checking facts that you already suspect to be true but aren't 100% certain you remember correctly.

[Solatar]

I use it sometimes if I just want to look something up and get a bit of an understanding about it. Say I've heard of Spaghetti but I only know it's some kind of pasta. I look it up, find out it's long, covered in sauces sometimes and can be prepared in many different ways, etc.

I also use it for that purpose when writing research papers.

[Styxx]

Wikipedia is never wrong, it's reality that is often inaccurate. Oh, wait, that's the guide, isn't it......

Wikipedias' strengths and failings can be illustrated as follows;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre (as an example)

It's useful as a source for references, but it's scarcely reliable on its own.

Is there anything particularly wrong with Sartre's entry? I know next to nothing about him.

[aldo_14]

Wikipedia is never wrong, it's reality that is often inaccurate. Oh, wait, that's the guide, isn't it......

Wikipedias' strengths and failings can be illustrated as follows;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Satre (as an example)

It's useful as a source for references, but it's scarcely reliable on its own.

Is there anything particularly wrong with Sartre's entry? I know next to nothing about him.

It's the relative lengths I'm referring to.  Sartre is just a random grab; in general the 'best' info in wikipedia is on fairly pointless stuff like that (Klingons).

[Ford Prefect]

Well, I did find that their entry on Kant's Categorical Imperative was quite mismatched-- badly enough to sway my trust in them.

[BlackDove]

Sometimes it can be less than perfect.

[Styxx]

It's the relative lengths I'm referring to. Sartre is just a random grab; in general the 'best' info in wikipedia is on fairly pointless stuff like that (Klingons).

Well, that's to be expected. The fact that there is an entry about Sartre is good enough by itself - I bet the dead-tree encyclopedia I have at home doesn't even have one (it's a 16 volume Britannica).

[Descenterace]

I will never trust any argument that uses Wikipedia as a major source. The arguer will have to come up with something rather more reliable.

Yes, the Wiki is fine when I'm looking up info on a topic (mainly because it usually quotes several other vaguely-reliable sources), but if someone's trying to convince me of something they can do better, such as directly quoting the reliable sources.

[aldo_14]

It's the relative lengths I'm referring to. Sartre is just a random grab; in general the 'best' info in wikipedia is on fairly pointless stuff like that (Klingons).

Well, that's to be expected. The fact that there is an entry about Sartre is good enough by itself - I bet the dead-tree encyclopedia I have at home doesn't even have one (it's a 16 volume Britannica).

Well, think about which is more important.  Not just this specific one, but in terms of popular (i.e. Tv, easy stuff, pish) topics versus scientific, specific and tough ones.  Something like Satre is not only shorter, but less popular - i.e. it has less oversight, less checking.  It's possible for vandalised entries on obscure things to remain sitting around for months - literally - on end.  Not that wikipedia is useless - it is a good idea and does have useful information - but by its open nature it is far from flawless, and the idea that 'anyone can fix it' runs contrary to the general principle of an encyclopedia - namely that information is suppossed to be accurate, and that the reader should be able to trust it. 

[StratComm]

Ah, but the same can be said of any encyclopedia too.  They can be great starting points, but cannot be used on their own to make an argument.  Wikipedia, like any paper set, will usually have enough information to disprove something that is blatently wrong, but not much else.  And it offers you direction for further study, which is the real strength of any reference source.