how much trust do you put in Wikipedia?

[TMA_1]

I have done a lot of reading in wikipedia, and have put much trust in it. One day though while mentioning wiki to a friend, the friend told me to not put so much trust into it. I had noticed before how many topics have a skew towards one opinion or another, but after this friend told me this, it began to sink in more how biased it can be.

Obviously this is the case because it is a site for the uncredited scholar to post the information he has studied. You can see the bias particularly when it comes to religion and politics. Especially involving christian doctrine. Sometimes it is lionized, and most of the time it is taken to the opposite spectrum of intellectual dishonesty. You can see that people neglect to fully explain doctrine, or people will make haphazard statements about christianity, summing up ideas that literalists take from the scriptures. For example if you read about the christian view of the apocolypse, there have been statements made that somehow the christian perspective is against the views of scripture from the old testament. Or people will unfairly cast a dubious eye on the interpritation of the old testament, citing jewish scholars or using weasel words to say that "most" scholars dont hold to doctrines of the trinity or of the messiah.

It isnt just concerning christianity, but also concepts dealing with politics on both angles, and on race, the issues that seem to really be in the publics mind.

Do you guys see this bias? Wiki cannot be used as a source for almost all of the college courses I have taken. If this is the case, what academic purpose does Wiki serve?

[GUNWOUNDS]

it serves for quick instant info about things that cannot be biased slanted.

Such as... information about weapons technology (like say different nuke tech and radiation effects), theoretical physics, undeniable historical facts , or anything else that is very bias resistant.

Its also great for finding information that is obscure like the equation for something,  or perhaps a simple definition.

It has its uses but of course it doesnt make sense to use it as the end-all-be-all source for education on controversial matter.

Thats just common sense.

Guns

[alchemi2]

Aren't all reference source bias to some degree, so long as your aware of the bias does it really matter, after all you would only rarely work on a premise based on only one source of information.

Hence why quotes and references in debate often are futile rather than definitive as often interpretation is of greater importance than the substance.

[Edric O]

The problem with bias on wikipedia is not so much the fact that it is more common than bias in other encyclopedias; it is the fact that wiki bias is inconsistent.

In other words, different articles have different biases, and sometimes the same article might change tone from one paragraph to the next. When you read a text by a Christian author you expect a Christian bias. When you read a text by a liberal author you expect a liberal bias. And so on. But because wikipedia has so many authors, you never know what bias to expect. It is almost entirely random. And it is very difficult to guard against bias if you have no idea which side's bias you are dealing with.

That's why the highest quality articles on wikipedia are usually those where bias is not possible: articles on science or simple yes/no facts (for example, wikipedia has the only comprehensive list of countries where you are supposed to drive on the left side of the road).

[Andrew]

I trust wikipedia for quick basic facts. Like say wind turbines (very interesting stuff since my province is going to be 30% run by them in a couple years, and my family lives on prime land for wind power according to the wind atlas released by the government).

I don't trust wikipedia to write a thesis essay (since you need multiple sources from actual books/articles/periodicals).

[Dunenewt]

it serves for quick instant info about things that cannot be biased slanted.

Such as... information about weapons technology (like say different nuke tech and radiation effects), theoretical physics, undeniable historical facts , or anything else that is very bias resistant.

Its also great for finding information that is obscure like the equation for something,  or perhaps a simple definition.

It has its uses but of course it doesnt make sense to use it as the end-all-be-all source for education on controversial matter.

Thats just common sense.

Guns

I totally agree.  I use it about every day, for looking up historical dates amongst other stuff, and they're almost always right.

[nemafakei]

While there are some factual inaccuracies in Wikipedia, they're often easy to spot from the context. Sloppily-written sentences tacked on to paragraphs or stub articles shouldn't be trusted. More subtle mistakes also happen, but that's no different to any other reference. Since Wikipedia is online, it is fast, and you are left more time to cross-check it.

"Like say wind turbines (very interesting stuff since my province is going to be 30% run by them in a couple years"

We're 96% run by politicians, who generate hot air and flap around in circles slightly more cheaply.

[Timenn]

At the moment Wikipedia is very busy working on their sources. It seems like every page is either full of source references or requests for them.

This makes Wikipedia also a great starting point if you don't know where to look on a certain subject.

[TMA_1]

how can one get involved in helping wikipedia? I would really like to help contribute somehow. Please give me some pointers!

[nemafakei]

Top right corner: creat an account. Then, look for articles you might be interested in, and click on the links to other articles until you come across an article that's small, poorly written or poorly researched (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Conquered_Your_Planet I got from the 'random article' button on the left). Add to it as you wish by clicking on the 'edit' tab at the top of the article. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HELP