Is Wikipedia Crap?

[Emu]

I've come to the conclusion that yes, it is.

If you would've asked me that question a year ago, I would have been an ardent supporter of the site. But the more I read about it from non-Wiki sources (and the more I used the site itself, actually) I gradually became disillusioned. In particular after the i-Mock article was being considered for deletion, for no apparent reason other than some kind of grudge against website articles, while nobody complains about Wikipedia's "Lamest edit wars" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamest_edit_wars) article (isn't this supposed to be a serious site?) or the disturbing but not wholly unforeseen fact that Wikipedia proudly catalogues which of its members are afflicted with Asperger's syndrome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aspergian_Wikipedians)

As an aside, I would bet my soul that 90% of the people on that list aren't actually afflicted with Asperger's, but have self-diagnosed themselves to either get themselves e-pity or as an explanation for why they can't get a date. Just because you're too awkward to get some poon doesn't mean you're fucking disabled. Something about this just strikes a nerve with me, probably in part because my little cousin actually does have Asperger's.

Speaking of self-diagnosis, it seems one of Wikipedia's users and leading henchpeople accidentally self-diagnosed himself with a Ph.D. in Theology. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/)

[Fathom Zero]

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

Site dedicated to exposing Wikipedia's massive amounts of gayness.

It's like someone created a great sports car and then made it so that it had 408 steering wheels and a random button that says "skid uncontrollably". We're here to shake that thing up, give people a new perspective.

So yeah! We're in total agreement, you bastards

[kahljorn]

What I usually do is use wikipedia to search for sources that look good then I look up the sources somewhere else. Sometimes I use the citations at the end if one of them looks good.
i basically only use it for reference because almost every professor frowns on it. but if you have access to a book or a library or good internet searching skills and aren't just being an idiot you can use it to find good information.

[/sincere]

[Emu]

Wikipedia makes a good secondary source, usually, but 90% of the people who use it don't see it that way, and that's the problem. Wikipedia bills itself as an encyclopedia, not as a search engine. And most people won't look past Wikipedia's article to find reliable information, or contextual information.

[kahljorn]

you know what they say one man's crap is another man's internet search reference utility.

[Archduke Tips]

Wikipedia seems to be pretty accurate on scientific equations. But I don't use it for anything that is up for any sort of interpretation whatsoever.

[El Blanco]

Its great for a bibliography or as a starting point. To use it as an actual source, however, is foolish.

The only people who write and edit the articles are those with a vested interest.

[Emu]

The only thing I've found it's good for is information about bands, because people protect those so rabidly that any changes made to their pet band's article are reverted in an instant.

The only things more heavily guarded than bands are anime and game articles.

[Pudty]

I agree with Russo. Anything that is 100% consesus is fine to search up in times of need, and I have quoted wikipedia fallicies and generalizations on one more then one occation to win an argument.