Why you SHOULD trust Wikipedia
By merlinsorca
@merlinsorca (1118)
United States
July 3, 2010 10:11pm CST
I am getting fed up with all the people who say that Wikipedia is terrible because of it's open-editing. If everyone can edit it, shouldn't all articles have wrong information and be vandalized all the time? But they aren't. If someone adds blatantly incorrect information, it actually gets reverted before the public is able to see it - bad edits and vandalism can be reverted in seconds.
Wikipedia itself gets its information from other sources. This information is just put into an article for easier access. That's all Wikipedia is. People can only add information if they have references to other websites and books. If there is no reference, a [citation needed] template will be added to it.
Many editors put their hard work in Wikipedia just so they can be told that their information is terrible and shouldn't be trusted. Why? Why don't people trust Wikipedia? Do you trust it? If not, then at least learn how it works before making any judgments. Only about 140,000 editors are active on Wikipedia when there are millions of people who use the website. So those millions of people say "Don't trust Wikipedia" when they haven't even edited an article before...
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
1 person likes this
9 responses
@cheongyc (5072)
• Malaysia
4 Jul 10
I have read about a research which compare the accuracy of information available in wikipedia and a renown encyclopedia. The result show that wikepedia is having a better accuracy in most of the aspects being measured. I believe wikipedia is reliable and trusted, because people can always correct the inaccurate information when they found out about it. Besides, it's neutral and offer several versions if there is some ambiguous facts existing in the same time. To me, wikipedia is something live and informative all the time. 
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
4 Jul 10
Yeah, in other encyclopedias the readers can't just fix a mistake if they see one. You can't improve it if you want to. But in Wikipedia, anyone can start learning how to help. The more people that work on it, the better it gets.
1 person likes this
@cheongyc (5072)
• Malaysia
5 Jul 10
Exactly, that's the advantage of Wikipedia. I am surprised by the astonishing details that are available in it. I could even find some local attractions and also celebrity inside it, which I never expect it to appear in it. I think people from a around the world is doing a good job, in sustaining this wonderful live encyclopedia. Best of all, it's a a free one.
@Honeybuttz1397 (173)
• Philippines
17 Jul 10
This discussion has made me more interested on Wikipedia. Cheongyc, Thanks for the additional knowledge.It makes me trust it even more.
@mgreco_1988 (18)
• United States
5 Jul 10
Wikipedia scans through all of their articles and delete articles that are blatantly wrong. But, as far as some of the info being wrong, nothing can be done. I wouldnt use them for a research paper but for simply looking things up its fine.
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
5 Jul 10
Sometimes I use Wikipedia for official things even when I'm asked not to lol, I do trust it that much. It's supposed to be neutral and offer many different opinions, so it can sometimes be better than most other resources.
@mgreco_1988 (18)
• United States
5 Jul 10
But if you use wikipedia in your works cited page... haha.
@GardenGerty (160665)
• United States
4 Jul 10
I use wikipedia, I find it very convenient. Sometimes I double check with other sources. I appreciate the skills of the contributers and the ease with which I can learn about various topics.
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
5 Jul 10
It is very helpful to have all the information in one place, and articles should have the sources at the bottom as references. So basically Wikipedia brings all the information so you don't have to search for it later
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
5 Jul 10
Yes, most vandalism is done by people who don't even use an account. Many of the editors wouldn't want to make an account and make bad edits on purpose, and those that do vandalize with an account can be blocked easily.
@savak03 (6684)
• United States
6 Jul 10
Very well put. I too have noticed those articles which have a disclaimer about the info not being verified. So that tells me that I should take tat statement with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean the whole site is unreliable. In fact that tells me that I can rely on the info from articles tat have been verified. Some people just get all their exercise by jumping to conclusions.
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
6 Jul 10
Technically, if there was ever a bad article on Wikipedia then anybody viewing it should know it. So I never understood people who say "There are always mistakes." And, besides, whenever it is said that the information is not correct, it always asks the user to try to improve it. Apparently people just ignore this and don't bother helping it.
@Honeybuttz1397 (173)
• Philippines
17 Jul 10
It never came into my mind, that there are those who doesn't trust wikipedia. Thank you for bringing this discussion up here on mylot. I trust Wikipedia. In fact I found it as a reliable source of information, and it is user friendly.
I think there are a lot like us who trusts Wikipedia. It is just that, we have each of our own preferences,where to get info's.
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
10 Aug 10
There are people who do not trust Wikipedia; on myLot there are discussions that say you shouldn't trust Wikipedia and on other websites people write articles about why Wikipedia is so unreliable. Of course, there are also people who trust Wikipedia but it seems that everywhere I look the people don't trust it and are trying to convince others not to trust it.
@udnisak (609)
• Australia
25 Aug 10
this is true.. but what to do..? i always use wikipedia as the source to find important information.. it gives me the perfect start to find information and acts as a knowledge base.. i naturally go to wiki whenever i want to find information.. but we should be carefull about the accuracy of those information and should check from other sources before trusting them..
@diamania (7011)
• Netherlands
4 Jul 10
This article written in 2007 shows you why wikipedia isn't quite as reliable as you try to sketch here. (http://www.guyvider.com/2007/08/dont-trust-wikipedia.html)
Furthermore I have often experienced that plain good contributions where removed because they contained information that is not beneficial for the person in question although being proved to be the truth.
Despite of all that wikipedia remains my favorite and first source of information.
@merlinsorca (1118)
• United States
4 Jul 10
Ah yes, I have heard of some companies that try to edit their own article on Wikipedia. That is true, but there is actually a way to deal with this. Wikipedia makes sure that all it's articles have a Neutral point of view. If anybody edits their own company then it's pretty easy to figure out they did, and a template will be added that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
Whenever someone removes a good contribution, they have to explain themselves and why they removed it. There could have been a good reason, or not. If not then that removal can be reverted anyway.
