I just want to gather people views on Wikipedia.

Yes/no is a bit harsh.. World isn't black and white you know. Also, which encyclopedia is "true"? They are all written by people and no one is all-knowing or unbiased.

I like to think of Wikipedia as hearsay. It is a good place to get background information and some "casual" facts, but I would never rely on it for anything related to business or education.

Would you believe some random guy on the street to incest your money or use him as a reference in your schoolwork? No! Well, these very same guys write Wikipedia.

Incest is best,as they say.

But nearly seriously,Wiki has been proven to be about as accurate as Enylopaedia Brittanica,according to Nature magazine HERE

As long as people know what a Wiki is - 'can be edited by almost anyone' - then no problem.

I don't think the problem is that it can be edited by almost anyone, it's that there is no control over content. So long as you take the information with a pinch of salt and perhaps verify by checking elsewhere, Wiki has great value!

And some followups on that total Nature fiasco..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03..._nature_study/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...ipedia_nature/

(Sorry, I only read IT news and CBA to look up more)

Sometimes Wiki can reach a deeper truth,than any formal body of knowledge -

Its free...free stuff are never really good, but wiki kinda passes the mark...its good, for a FREE encyclopedia.. (buy encarta)

I agree this shouldn't be a yes/no type of question. I love Wikipedia and have literally spent hours checking out content in that site in more than one occasion, however it's clear you should read knowing beforehand what the source of the content is and some criteria based on that same fact.

Forgot to mention just that... A real encyclopedia VS. Wikipedia...

Sometimes it's not even apples to apples. Wikipedia is sometimes updated on the fly (for good or bad). But say I like the UFC and want to check details on previous events, champions, etc. Wiki has that info, a standard encyclopedia obviously doesn't. Another example is tennis, you can get a good grasp at statistics, tournament history and even trivia from a single site.

Fact is Wikipedia is a good database for research on general topics, a way to get familiar with somthing that you had no previous knowledge of which to tell you the truth is why we are using it to begin with. Are all the facts written legit ? Probably not, but it will give you the general idea. Should you take it to heart and incorperate it into a important school report ? No, of course not, the whole concept of a valuable researched based report is exactly that, research. If the information needed is that valuable cross reference the information with atleast 5 other reputable sources and make, through processing the fact of each source, a educated choice of the facts.

But when it comes down to it wikipedia is a valuable tool for general information search, even if all the information on said topic is not correct, most of it probably is and will give you a good basis to conduct further research.

"Candy's dandy, but incest is best"! (To the best of my recollection).

A lot of people take a lot of time, trouble, and effort into making Wikipedia a vast source of knowledge. As entries go, so go the contributers. Most people are honest, and consequently most of what you'll find on Wiki is factual. Many people write decent, useful, software, then make it available for the asking, free of charge. Some people write viruses and foist them off on you, any way they can.
"Caveat Emptor", (as they also say).

"Candy's dandy, but liquor is quicker"! I've also heard that tossed around.

Wikipedia is amazing; but it has it's flaws... Google's "knol" will be edited wrongly just for laughs as well as wikipedia has been for day one.

FenderGuy2112

Hmm...your right..
but didn't they try to ban wikipedia in schools? LINK TO ARTICLE
Its a user based system. much like TS. It depends on people putting information on their own. (its of course looked over) but its a bit inaccurate.
But i like wiki, in fact, i have an account and have donated on 2 occasions.

PS: shouldn't you have edited you post julio? Just saying!

I'd say wikipedia is good for quick and simple answers (sometimes more) but if it comes to more scientific stuff I'd better read twice and check back other sources.

I love wikipedia... I use it all the time. But I do accept that it's not totally accurate. Doesn't mean I don't use it for school projects though.

OMG! Julio double posted. Shame.

(jk )

i voted for [I]no[/I]. well some facts are not quite right on wikipedia but try to edit some article and type stuff, and people will clean up the mess pretty soon. i mean it's quite reliable if you want some basic knowledge like what is Amphoe Khuan Kalong (i clicked on random article for this ).