Wikipedia- is it really unbiased?

[Crazy]

In your opinion, is Wikipedia.org really as unbiased as it appears to be?

 

[Quadeshet]

Of course it's biased. It's biased towards people who have access to the internet, the leisure and the inclination to write articles or edit other's writings.

One has to take it for what it is: a non-authoritive knowledge base that should spark your own research into the topic of interest.

It's still a terrific concept, and the 'random article' feature is a nice way to while away some free time.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I like Wikipedia, actually. It seems factual on everything I looked up. To test it out, I looked up the artical on Jayne Mansfield (who is a subject of many misconceptions). It seems mostly factual--- she was not decapitated and she was not a Satanist like some thumpers on Christian forums said of her. It seems like the information there is more accurate to me than the critics. Jayne is buried about 17 miles due North of me in Penn Argyl and was native to our area as a young child. The only mistake I found is that Jayne was not born in Bryn Mawr Pa, but rather next door here in Phillipsburg, NJ--- but that is an understandable "mistake" since her birth certificate said Bryn Mahr. Being into my family's genealogy, I also crossed her grave and took pics of hers all her relatives buried next to her--- maybe Mariska Hargitay on Law and Order SVU would like a pic of her mom's grave. :

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so I cannot see how that can be biased coming from any source. I think that someone else would see the error and correct it, and research would prove it to be the case.

 

[Quid]

As far as sites off the internet goes it's as unbiased as they come. In order to keep an article there one must actually back it up with verifiable sources and stand against peer review.

While it's subject to the occasional vandalism it's often rectified in minutes if not seconds.

My only qualms with it are that while it's information is often more up to date than a standard encyclopedia and covers more topics, it rarely goes as in depth as one on many subjects.

 

[Vic C.]

One has to take it for what it is: a non-authoritive knowledge base that should spark your own research into the topic of interest.

It's still a terrific concept, and the 'random article' feature is a nice way to while away some free time.

Good points. It does make for a good place to start your research. I find it useful at times myself.

 

[Guest]

There was actually a formal review of Wikipedia done that compared it to several prominent encyclopedias. The panel of experts found Wikipedia more informative and less biased than most. It's as least as good as an encyclopedia on just about all subjects, but it falls short when compared to dedicated journals that specialize in a particular field. Which is to be expected.

 

[ThinkerMan]

One has to take it for what it is: a non-authoritive knowledge base that should spark your own research into the topic of interest.

It's still a terrific concept, and the 'random article' feature is a nice way to while away some free time.

Good points. It does make for a good place to start your research. I find it useful at times myself.

True....usually its a much better place to find real and informative links than google or yahoo.

That's what I like most about it. If I disagree with the content of an article, usually the primary source is one click away.

I've written and edited a few articles on wikipedia, so that's kind of fun too.

 

[Vic C.]

... I've written and edited a few articles on wikipedia, so that's kind of fun too.

That's it! I'm never using it again! :-D


:smt056

 

[Brother Ian]

Of course it's biased.