Why you should never trust Wikipedia - NJ.com Options

[Newsfeed]

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Why you should never trust [b]Wikipedia[/b]
[size="-1"]NJ.com
After I wrote the other day about the financial crisis confronting this state, I received a comment from someone who claimed to be a retired public-school ...



View the article

[Kato]

A little bit complicated, but quite interesting.

[JohnA]

Ah yes, Wikipedia: distorting history and posting lies since 2001.

[Adambro]

Which is why you should never rely on Wikipedia. If you want to use it, use it as a starting point. Click through the footnotes to the original source. And if that source is some sort of propaganda organ, ignore it and go find the truth elsewhere.

I think this final paragraph is reasonable guidance. Of course Wikipedia can never be 100% accurate, it is a good start for getting an overview of a subject but if you need to be confident of accuracy then you need to look at the source. That isn't unlike other publications though. It is hardly unusual to realise that what could be described as highly respected news organisations are wrong about some things. The advantage with Wikipedia is that where you spot an issue you can easily fix it, it isn't quite so easy with a news story on the TV yet they both could reach similar numbers of people.

[thekohser]

The advantage with Wikipedia is that where you spot an issue you can easily fix it...

I think I've "spotted an issue" that needs fixing, if you get my drift.

[Moulton]

How many people here on W-R have spotted an issue and then discovered, much to their chagrin, that it cannot easily be fixed?

[Anonymous editor]

I think this final paragraph is reasonable guidance. Of course Wikipedia can never be 100% accurate, it is a good start for getting an overview of a subject but if you need to be confident of accuracy then you need to look at the source.

Exactly. It's been said again and again, but people still say the same things.