This is something I have often wondered about. I have worked for online websites that stated that Wikipedia wasn't to be used as a research source. Then I have read from individuals online how they don't like using it. Yet, my experience with Wikipedia is that for the most part its a reliable source for information. But I guess its the for the most part that gives it a bad rap. That and the fact that anyone can write there and add content. But I still like Wikipedia none the less, and have found it to be a good research source myself, but I maybe alone in the feeling.
I enjoy Wikipedia and I've learned things there, but anyone can write for it and sometimes they are wrong. So enjoy it for some light reading but don't use it as research to write a report that your job or final grade depends on.
I think you hit the nail on the head by stating that "anyone can write there". There is a degree of self regulation on the site but there have been plenty of examples when people have consciously and unconsciously put down incorrect facts - so maliciously, as a joke or just in error. That said, I still default to it first as it's usually on the first page of Google.
I always wondered about that. It's true everyone can write at wikipedia, but they control what is written so the site isn't full with wrong information. I believe wiki to be amazing and I use it a lot, never having any problems with it. I had school teachers who didn't want to use wikipedia, which I did anyway, and til now, I never got the wrong information from them.
It's a useful source, but unlike texts the information can be flawed if incorrectly interpreted or if there are no references. I find it can be a good overview, but things need to be cross referenced and some information may be out if date.
I agree that there is some misinformation on Wikipedia. Which might have led to them getting the bad rap. But I have also found that for the most part they do have good reputable content. I find myself going to them more then any other research source when I want information on something. Yes, I have seen some wrong content that seem more as if it was someone's own personal opinion. Then when you try to fix it yourself you are told that you don't have access because the individual has taken it. But the individual is giving some false information to the public. All right, maybe I like Wikipedia but I guess I can see why some see it as a content mill. This is an example of how it could be classified as one.
Look Wikipedia is full of information and a lot of it IS useful. BUT, like you said, anyone can write in it. It SHOULD NOT be used for research for school or whatever. At least not as an only source. It is easy because everything is right there. SO yeah, use it as a starting point. Get your notes down and then double check that information on sources that are more reliable.
I think you can use Wikipedia for school depending on what you're looking for. If you just need to do some basic research without having to go into details, it should be alright. Wikipedia got it's basic stuff right most of the time, so it is ok for Highschool, but it shouldn't be your main information source if you're at an university.
I don't why's that but in my own experience, Wikipedia is good source of information. I mean, i know pretty much anyone can edit the articles but i think a moderator has to approve of the changes first right before it gets posted? I mean that's how it mostly works on things like this. Anyways, I think Wikipedia is best for some light research.
Unfortunately, @obliviousme (btw, love the avatar) it doesn't. I have added things to Wikipedia and they were immediately posted. I didn't even have to register.
