----> As source of information?
What grade would you furnish it from 1 to 10 (10 being the unmatched = the best)?
What about the other "Wiki"-es (media, quote, etc.)?
:::::::::::::Thanks.
Answers: I would tender it an 8 because of its great content and wide collection of topics. But, anyone can edit Wikipedia and it is importantly plagiarised. Reputable educational institutions recommend not to use references from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I still refer to Wikipedia to gain comprehension on a wide array of topics.
7. You don't have to log within to edit. I find not exact or incomplete stuff on there adjectives the time. But I also find useful internet crap I don't find anywhere else.
wiki is pretty good. BUT close to always, you hold to check the facts.
try to find somewhere else the answer on the question you looked for within Wiki. Compare them. Books and internetsites and wiki can always produce mistakes, ly, or have a wrong phantasm
listen..ppl are always relating u that it sucks cuz its edited by other ppl. im gonna tell u right in a minute that common sense will prevent u from using the wrong information. approaching someone said karl marx once gave herpes to a crowd of ppl he give a speech to. but thats obviously not true. and i even get yelled at by wikipedia cuz i be joking around maxim the power rangers fought contained by the civil war. they said if i expurgate it wrong two mroe times i get excluded
i give it a 9
10! so much better than looking for stuff contained by the library or from an encyclopedia. i know the info might not be 100% true sometimes. but I'm doing research for high academy so i can get away beside it. besides it has freaking everything right in that waiting to be copy pasted. =D
RELIABLE LIKE RELIANCE.
Anyone can cut.
Enough said.
It really depends on the topic, if it is a fairly significent article consequently the fact that anyone can stifle it will help within it's reliablity, since so many ethnic group see it no one point of attitude will be able to force the article to one point of picture. However if it's a fairly minor article consequently it will be easy for bias to step unnoticed.
Really depends on the article. The more mainstream, (something you could find within Encarta or Encyc Britannica for examples) the subject, the quality should be flawless. If it's about something fickle or not widely as covered, it may not be so accurate. But that's what the references are for, so look at the bottom of any article for hints if something is writing from their memory or trying to construct a concrete article.
Even "real" encyclopedias suffer from major meticulousness issues, but Wikipedia can be updated any time and move quickly.
Wikipedia is a thoroughly reliable source of information.I give it 8. I do patronise nursingwiki.
I don`t know 70%
9... i did a paper on it. un believable results
i'd donate it an 8
i've never used wiki media..but i'd pass wiki quote an 8 too
:::::::::i WOULD GIVE IT A 5 because people can tweaking the info and its not always accurate... school don't allow students to use it either because they could return with the wrong info but think its right.
::::::::::You are extremely welcome :P
your choice yes/no
anyone can gag it
7/10
I've found it to be fairly accurate, but I wouldn't be money on it. Since anyone can translate it I have see some things I know aren't correct. Overall about 7-8 is what I'd rate it.
It depends on which articles you look at on Wikipedia. Some are locked so not a soul can edit them so and so, those are more reliable than the ones that anyone can edit.
I'd offer them a 9.
There are a whole lot of stories in the region of inaccurate information because anyone can stifle,etc. etc. but I use them alot.
Normally, I'm looking for a subject that I already know a little going on for and would like to know more. Only once enjoy I ever caught anything that I know to be wrong. Frankly when I'm watching CNN or reading the newspaper, I hear incorrect facts adjectives the time. For example, I've become fascinated with the see and I'm constantly hearing things close to anchors saying "Wisconsin and Puerto Rico vote subsequent (several weeks ago)". It was in fact WI and Hawaii, but hey at least they picked a tropical island.
Anyway, nobody is reliable and wikipedia certainly falls into that category but I feel it is a lot more accurate than they return with credit for.
7-8.
Though enyone can edit, at hand are people who hold on to a tab on the non-reliable information from stayin in the wikipedia for long
The solid journal Nature once did a study on Wikipedia's exactitude, comparing it to Encyclopedia Britannica. They found that while Britannica was contained by fact more accurate, it wasn't by a totally large outside edge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/45...
If you want my personal opinion, Wikipedia is moral for most empirical subjects that are purely based on complex facts, like physics or chemistry. When you catch into areas that are more political or otherwise opinionated in some form, you'd tend to own problems with open-mindedness. Topics from pop culture, however, tend to have greatly of problems due to the simple fact that they're repeatedly edited by the masses who really don't know the first entry about how to write a proper encyclopedia article.
anyone can expurgate
???