Do you believe what you read in Wikipedia? I've just read this about Mayor Boris's old flame?

Question

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450045/Wicked-pedia-Why-online-encyclopedia-makes-want-scream.html

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

It is open to abuse. I have cross referenced certain articles in the past & found errors or bits missing. I would add it was only on one article. I think it is generally a good source of information. The trouble is if you have no knowledge of the subject you are researching & the article is not factually correct then you can be left mis informed unless you use an other source to verify the information.

Answer 3

well it does contain a lot of facts but i hear that anyone can add to it if they want to

Answer 4

Wikipedia is a site that can be changed and edited by normal people like us. Some of it's true but some of it's not. If you need good, reliable information go to a different website.

Answer 5

Hi Vince,

Yeah, I get a lot of my information from this tool, I even add to it from time to time. I am very interested in history especially that of Greenwich, that's why I spend a lot of time there. Hey, why don't you and Scep have a drink with me in the 'auctioneer', or 'Cutty Sark' sometime. I suppose some of the information is a bit Naff but on the whole I think its cool and often rely on it for quick scripts..

ATB Red

Answer 6

I do not believe it but I do use it as a jump of point to find real details.

Answer 7

Isn't Wikipedia the real life Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Absolutely everything is there, lots of it anecdotal, much of it apocryphal and a good deal deliberately misleading. But compulsive nevertheless!

Answer 8

No. I tend to question its veracity but it often does tend to be ok.

Answer 9

i believe it, its never proved wrong for me, lots of intelligent people write in those articles and if someone did write something incorrectly it would be changed pretty fast by wiki-geeks!

Answer 10

Well, there's no such thing as an absolutely reliable source, but Wikipedia comes fairly close. The more controversial, sensational, or current the Wikipedia topic is...the less reliable Wikipedia is. Tens of thousands of people contribute to it, so mistakes do creep in. And more and more people are editing it to fit their own agendas. Wikipedia is a good place to start research on any topic though, just don't expect it to be gospel.

Answer 11

Not completely, especially when i first accessed the site and found under the heading of ancient Rome which i am very interested in a whole paragraph about sun dried tomatoes in amongst the info on the history of the Holy Roman empire, Hilarious and at the time i didn't know that anyone can change the data

Answer 12

yes.. i do believe..

because i get most informations in wikipedia...

and it helps me a lot...

=)

Answer 13

Wikipedias aim is to provide accurate information, however due to the ability to edit, given to anyone who makes an account, articles offen get changed or 'vandalised' as stated by Wikipedia, So not everything can be true.

Answer 14

Of course The Daily Mail aren't going to let something like the truth get in the way of a salacious story:

In May 2007, Private Eye reported that Wyatt had been instructed by Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, to pen an attack on Wikipedia over the content of her entry on the site. This was published on 22 April 2007 when Wyatt admitted to writing her initial entry and then threatening to sue over vandalism to the page. She concluded the article by saying:

    Education Secretary Alan Johnson may claim that Wikipedia is educational history and "a force for good". But if Wikipedia is "history", then history is indeed bunk. I suspect that Mr Johnson, perhaps, just wanted to read more about my embonpoint. Wicked-pedia!

Answer 15

That's hysterical.  I particularly like the comment asking whether she lists self-aggrandisement as one of her hobbies!

Seriously though, Wikipedia is a great place to start researching a subject, but should never be trusted as a sole source.  Petronella Wyatt is not a subject I would be interested in researching - I didn't know she was one of Boris Johnson's old flames, but that may be the most interesting thing about her.

Answer 16

yeah i actually do most of the time

Answer 17

No...I always look for supporting information if its on Wiki.

Answer 18

I do have evidence on Wiki of someone changing and fabricating something to their own advantage, I had personal knowledge of the situation, so I guess this pretty much answers your question.  No.

Answer 19

No. The statements made there are often from unverifed sources.

Answer 20

Most of the factual or historical information is fairly accurate but you have to be wary of using it for info on celebs, politicians, or other famous people as the details are prone to being hacked by pranksters.

Answer 21

Ole Wiki is a valuable "research tool", not a "source" and all you read should be checked with the original sources (documents, established authors and public data).

I use it often, but I also back check what I consider suspect and never, never quote it as a "source".

It's the age old sage of "Shisho" aka manure or "Gigo" garbage in garbage out.

Boris?  Any one's bet.

Answer 22

No because anyone can register with Wilipedia and once you register you can log in and edit information.  I'm not saying that it's wrong information I'm just saying don't rely on it as your sole source of information.

Answer 23

.

Answer 24

Sounds plausible, just a tad too plausible.

Answer 25

Every time I use Wikipedia I double check some place else.  Wikipedia is written by and edited by regular people, and I want to be sure I got the right information.  It is good for quickly finding out an answer that isn't a life or death matter.

Answer 26

If it's an article about the geography of Canada, yeah I tend to believe it.... but when it goes into people's pasts and their personal lives, you can't really trust it. Don't believe the Daily Mail either, or the BBC- they often just make **** up..