Is Wikipedia reliable?

[pastafari]

(06-07-2011 11:34 PM)boymom Wrote:  Nope, sorry, the burden of proof is on you. If we have to prove a positive (God exists), then you must do the same (Wikipedia is reliable).

I am talking about reliably accurate. This is easily demonstrated, but you will need to do it on your own.

Take several subjects which you know a lot about and find their corresponding Wikipedia article. Make note of all the facts presented and calculate the proportion of incorrect facts vs correct facts. Repeat this and make an average. You will see its reliability then.

leaving Wrote:There is a very good reason why as a student I'm not allowed to use wikipedia as a source of research for college assignments. It's because it's not reliable. After all, any idiot can edit any article they want or write any article they want. They don't actually have to know about the subject matter.

I understand colleges dont want you using it, but its a great starting point. Do you have some examples of unreliable articles, or are you just going to offer unsubstantiated claims?

Mark Wrote:My only attempt to help Wikipedia came several years ago when I spent several months trying to edit an article on an historical figure about whom I am THE expert. A user kept changing my text back to what s/he had written. I finally gave up until the user was banned.

Which historical figure are you THE expert on?

Also, lets be honest, how many of you use Wikipedia instead of consulting the Encyclopedia Brittanica?