There are no recorded trackback links from other weblogs.

Well people tend to lie alot, its just a fact. On a site like that people might be telling have truths, i might use it as a back up website, just encase i have to conflicting reference sources this could be the judge. But any one can change it so it could be worng.

you just have to look at it with a questioning mind...

It certainly is an interesting concept, a openly available, perpetually changing encylcopedia. I'd like to think that the idea itself is a good one, but the fact that its so open rather precludes it from being a primary source of information. It seems to be a good source of ideas, and satisfying ones own curiosity about a given topic, but as far as any credible, citeable information is concerned... well, its pretty much as open as the rest of the internet, even if so many people watch it on a daily basis as the claims state.

Personally, I would use a site like wikipedia for getting an idea of a term or a general overview of a person or place. Skepticism would still be held and doubt of whether or not the information posted by random people online is accurate or not. As a reference tool it can be used but not with 100% guaranteed precision. Though I do like the idea of a document database that is produced by many individuals so in this manner bias and angles can be taken out of these articles. But with this format bias and angles can be posted. Wikipedia is a double-edged sword that should be used and read with a grain of salt.

I indeed have used wikipedia as a source for a paper in highschool. I trust this site and wrong errors that are made within the system are corrected. Everybody needs a way to stand out and Wikipedia uses the open source method to allow other users to edit it. Now how many other sites let you do that?

I'm not sure how readily I would accept information from the site. If anyone is allowed to post or edit an article, I find it hard to put all my confidence in the accuracy and truthfulness of the entries. The site brings up the point that there are thousands of people viewing the information, all of which are entitled to make comments and changes regarding the validity of that information, although this still doesn't fully convince me to believe everything on the site. Still, I think to get a general overview of a topic, it probably has good use with so many opions and different viewpoints for each topic.

I think wikipedia would be a good source to start collecting information. You can get an idea of what information there is on a topic so you can get an idea of how to start reasearch on it. I dont think however i would use it as a source because its facts and statistics may not be as accurate as other web sites might be. Because it is open source it is affected like the rest of the internet is by wrong information.

Use this source to get started but to reference from it may not be a good idea.

Wikipedia does not sound like a creditable source if anyone can add or edit information. I could make up anything I wanted and no one would know if i was lying or not. It does not sound like a valuable tool at all. You would be wasting your time if you even started there to get ideas in my opinion.

I probably wouldn’t start looking there, and I wouldn't use any information found on Wikipedia as the only source for a certain topic. I’d use it to support or exemplify certain ideas provided it agreed with information found from a more credible source.

A couple articles... For and Against

Since things can be edited I would not trust it as a souce. However I might use it as a way to get various views on subjects or ideas on what topcis are currently being discussed.

Wikopedia seems like a fairly reliable source. however, as with any other informational site on the internet, I would find another source to back it up.

It sure sounds like a nice project, but I would take everything with a grain of salt. Sure there are some honest people out there, but I would definitely look somewhere else for sources with more credibility. Bottom line is, it is a nice place to share ideas, thoughts, opinions... and that in one stop shop place to do just that. My journey for more credible sources continues ...

So, here's a challenge for those of you who think it's not a fully reliable or credible source...

Can you find an article on the site with an inaccuracy in it? If so, print it out (or take a screen shot of it) and bring it to class.

Any of the postings that I located stated generally thesame thing. They said that theinformation should betakenwitha grain of salt. You should beware of the information that is found there but it is generally good.

I think that I would use the site for research purposes butonly if I were able to verify some of the information found on the desired subject first.

-Andy

I think wikipedia is a great sight but I personally would not use for any work that would be getting a grade.I might use it to get information but I would have t have another source that states the same thing for me to believe it. Since there is so Many weird people out there how do you know they would not go through the articles and change them for their entertainment.

To grasp a general overview of things, I think going to the site would be helpful. But considering that anyone can edit the information, I question the reliability. I would read the information provided then search elsewhere to see if the information coincides.

Wikopedia seems like it would be a good place to find information to start research on a topic. It is filled with tons of information that you might not find anywhere else. You can't be sure how credible the sources are, so I guess its just a good place to start research. I don't understand why someone would lie about information or make up information that they were putting on it, but i'm sure some people waste their time doing that sort of stuff.

Wikipedia is an open concept that is finds its home aptly on the net. I think that many people could use this as a cross-reference source for research. The idea that it is an open forum with a structure to exchange knowledge on the given topics is quite cool. There is naturally a wealth of both reliable and unreliable sources of info on the net and the design of wikipedia makes it something that can attempt to transcend those ideas of unreliable info. Taken with a grain of salt and not relied on for source information, it is a tool that I plan on using for my next research project.

I found an article regarding the reliability of Wikipedia in the author's opinion: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126

Personally, I do not think that I could blindly accept anything posted on Wikipedia without doing some additional research on whatever the topic in question is from a source in print or from a journal. The fact that anyone can post and edit information makes this site almost, if not just as unreliable as a biased perspective on the personal website of Jane Doe (essentially being the same thing). If anything I would list any information I found on Wikipedia as a Works Referenced. However, it is possible that the information may parallel any other researched material.

As qouted by a librarian from The Post Standard (It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.

The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site).

This article is claiming that there are no proven crediable factual basis for the information given by the wikipedia only information edited and given by users. So where do you put your trust in the information your recieving.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1093338972139211.xml

I think a site like Wikipedia is a good place for both general information and a starting place for more detailed information. If the exact correctness of the information isn't that important (for example, just general knowledge) then a site like that is fine. If he correctness of the info matters, then further exploration will (should) find any factual errors Wikipedia might have.

At first I was a bit skeptical about a user-editable site like Wikipedia, that the information might be from people who don't really know what they are talking about. However, in reading other people's comments and browsing wikipedia a bit, if a lot of users are using the site then hopefully information should be refined, made more detailed and accurate, and any blatant errors should be weeded out. I would not use Wikipedia to determine an exact fact, but for general information and "trivia" I think it is safe to use.

I would trust some of the information but I would be skeptical about it. I don't think anyone would really waste there time to lie about someone. If anything I think people might edit information to add something that they might know but that is not posted.