wikipedia and snopes

[Biblereader]

If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it's not a reliable source of unbiased or correct information.

I've found many errors in Wikipedia, and some articles are badly slanted for or against a topic, in some cases. Some of the contributers just don't know what they're talking about. NOT ALL, SOME!
Be discerning!

Use Wikipedia, like you might use cotton candy, for sustenance.





P.S. Snopes is not always the end all resource, either. It has biases, and deliberate omissions.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it's not a reliable source of unbiased or correct information.

I've found many errors in Wikipedia, and some articles are badly slanted for or against a topic, in some cases. Some of the contributers just don't know what they're talking about. NOT ALL, SOME!
Be discerning!

Use Wikipedia, like you might use cotton candy, for sustenance.





P.S. Snopes is not always the end all resource, either. It has biases, and deliberate omissions.

Yes one must be careful when using wiki. I generally use it to give an overview of a topic and to locate sources. The links at the bottom to the original sources for the aritcle can be very usefull in a research paper, although the main article cannot be used.

Also, I have found that the older the article is, the less slant there will be as the wiki community has had time to give input and correct errors. In general the community tries to present articles free of bias and errors, but many new articles are full of them. (the presidential candidate wikis were bad about that)

Still a great resource if used properly.

 

[handy]

I like Snopes, but as you say, there can be bias' and omissions as well. Still, they're pretty good.

I do remember one 'debunking' of a picture of this big snake a guy was supposed to have killed under bizarre circumstances and Barbara Mikkleson researched the whole picture and came out with the report that the picture wasn't what it was represented as in the email going around, and that the 'facts' of the snakes demise were distorted and unsubstantiated.

I actually emailed her and let her know that probably the reason why the facts of the snakes demise remained 'unsubstantiated' was the obvious fact that the snake in the picture was very much alive. Something she failed to notice in her report. :

 

[Biblereader]

Yes one must be careful when using wiki. I generally use it to give an overview of a topic and to locate sources. The links at the bottom to the original sources for the aritcle can be very usefull in a research paper, although the main article cannot be used.

Also, I have found that the older the article is, the less slant there will be as the wiki community has had time to give input and correct errors. In general the community tries to present articles free of bias and errors, but many new articles are full of them. (the presidential candidate wikis were bad about that)

Still a great resource if used properly.

I'll keep that in mind, the older an article is, the less slant...
It's getting to the point, at least in my studies, that I even have to research the author of the book, to see where his viewpoint and heart lies.
Ya know?
If you have 2 books about Jesus, one might be written by an atheist, and one by a Christian.
Depending on what you need the book for, the book might be a waste of money and time.

 

[Square]

If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it's not a reliable source of unbiased or correct information.

Very rarely have I ever visited Wikipedia, but every page that I have seen had serious errors. A couple Wikipedia pages were on topics that I had previously researched in depth, and I was thoroughly displeased with the bunk that Wikipedia is feeding the public.

For me, I keep wondering if there is any correct information on Wikipedia.

 

[John]

If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it's not a reliable source of unbiased or correct information.

Very rarely have I ever visited Wikipedia, but every page that I have seen had serious errors. A couple Wikipedia pages were on topics that I had previously researched in depth, and I was thoroughly displeased with the bunk that Wikipedia is feeding the public.

For me, I keep wondering if there is any correct information on Wikipedia.

Its very hard to tell unfortunately :x

 

[polysci006]

I regard Wikipedia as the internet's version of a billion monkeys on a billion typewriters.

It's way too easy for people to maliciously tamper with the articles, or for well-meaning individuals to just be wrong. Citations are nice, but honestly, I've never even used the citations while searching for source material for research.

 

[Biblereader]

If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it's not a reliable source of unbiased or correct information.

Very rarely have I ever visited Wikipedia, but every page that I have seen had serious errors. A couple Wikipedia pages were on topics that I had previously researched in depth, and I was thoroughly displeased with the bunk that Wikipedia is feeding the public.

.

Yep, that's what happened to me. I had studied, in depth, a historical account of something, and went to Wiki, and their account had important errors in it. I mean, if you believed what they had said, you'd be off in the wrong direction, totally.

 

[Biblereader]

I regard Wikipedia as the internet's version of a billion monkeys on a billion typewriters.

It's way too easy for people to maliciously tamper with the articles, or for well-meaning individuals to just be wrong. Citations are nice, but honestly, I've never even used the citations while searching for source material for research.

ha ha ha ha! Funny! I'll have to borrow your sentence and link, here, to give some people a good laugh.