Isn't it interesting how wikipedia is now a respected source?

[CyberCubed]

Only 30+ year olds will remember this, but when I was a teen in High School my teachers always said, "Never use wikipedia as a source, anyone can edit it and most of it is made up" when we had to do research for school papers or essays.

But that's not really true anymore, is it? Wikipedia is now (and has been for 15+ years) a valuable source of information on any subject. I often use it to look up facts for old TV shows, actors, or videogame information or something I'm curious about. Even sometimes reading entries on ancient civilizations or cultures.

It's just so funny how times have changed. Now everything on the internet is fact checked and any wrong information is quickly edited away. I still remember when my high school teachers acted like, "the internet is the devil" but now I realize it's because back then they were all 40-50 year old teachers, and if you're that old already by the early 2000's or late 90's that means they grew up in the 60's and 70's so the internet was "new and scary" to them.

Nowadays modern teachers are from our generation, young 30 year olds who grew up with the internet. And they reference things from youtube or twitter or social media. Man how times have changed.

[AquaParade]

My understanding is that is still isn't a great source, because anyone can go and alter it. I've found a lot of mis-information on wiki. That said, I use it all the time, recreationally.

[The Deadman]

I still don't understand what Cubed's obsession with age is but Wikipedia has never been a respected source of anything. You can go on there tomorrow and make literally anything up and it'll stay there before the editors go "oh sh*t this isnt true" and take it down.

[CyberCubed]

That's not really true, most misinformation is reverted back very quickly. I think people forget how many people monitor the articles there.

[ABrown]

So ironically, for like the 10th year in a row, Nickelodeon's TMNT social medias are saying happy anniversary to TMNT Turtles Forever on the wrong date. And I went to wikipedia to see what it says on there, and wikipedia has it wrong! Wikipedia incorrectly says that Turtles Forever premiered on television July 11th, 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_Forever). However, imdb has the correct date of November 21st, 2009 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1543920/).

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by ABrown

So ironically, for like the 10th year in a row, Nickelodeon's TMNT social medias are saying happy anniversary to TMNT Turtles Forever on the wrong date. And I went to wikipedia to see what it says on there, and wikipedia has it wrong! Wikipedia incorrectly says that Turtles Forever premiered on television July 11th, 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_Forever). However, imdb has the correct date of November 21st, 2009 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1543920/).

Wiki is a trusted source though.

[IMJ]

Difference between "respected" and "academic".

I've never known wikipedia to be used as an academic source for basically anything. it doesn't mean that students won't read it for the "cliff's notes" version of a concept, but I've never once seen an academic institution accept it as a cited source.

[frank_one]

Something like 10 years ago I created a new wikipedia article. Does it make me a respected source too?
I love wikipedia and I remember where it wasn't there. You would need to search and rely on random websites: it was a totally different internet experience, less easy but you would end up finding new good places you didn't know before.
Now whenever I need info about movies or music albums I automatically check wikipedia and it never let me down. For more serious or complex stuff I use it as a starting point to gather the most basic info and then I move to more specific websites or buy books on the topic.
Yeah, wikipedia is great, but it is what it is, an encyclopedia, the biggest one ever created. Something like the old Microsoft Encarta (good days) but much, much bigger. You won't find everything you need there but it is a wonderful way to start.
wiki is great but keep buying books, folks. The books are sexy.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by frank_one

wiki is great but keep buying books, folks. The books are sexy.

Another problem with Wikipedia is that administrators can delete whatever they want if they don't think it is notable.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Another problem with Wikipedia is that administrators can delete whatever they want if they don't think it is notable.

Oh man, yeah. I wasn't following the situation too closely, but I know there was a big thing a while back with how Wikipedia covered pro wrestlers. They used to list every guy's Finisher and Signature moves - which a lot of fans very much appreciated, especially because it made creating people in video games much easier - and then one day they arbitrarily stopped. When people complained and asked them to list Finishers/Signatures again, the Wikipedia Admins or whoever doubled down and were like "Well, wrestling is stupid anyway so since you asked us to bring it back we're definitely not bringing it back."

Classy.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by Leo656

wrestling is stupid

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not express or promote any opinions. So the administrators should not use such statements.

[Leo656]

I'm paraphrasing since I wasn't actually involved in the deal. But that was essentially their response as expressed to me by people who were involved in the "discussion".

[IndigoErth]

It's true that the internet seems to have stopped dismissing it, and there's plenty on it that at least 'appears' quite accurate. Though it really should still be taken with a grain of salt and never used as a source for anything important. Have a hard time believe any good teacher even today would accept it. Though could be still useful if it has links to other more valid sources to check out.

If you're just using it to point out something to some random stranger online and it doesn't matter in the long run, then whatever, go for it. But double checking with a second source might still be wise?

[MikeandRaph87]

Wikipedia is loathed in the academic world. I was a pioneer in utilizing Wikipedia appropriately and I instruct today's students in how to do the same. Wikipedia is great as a hub for other resources. If you go to the provided citation link and its a live link with the valid information Wikipedia is referring you to use it as a source. So yes, Wikipedia is great for FINDING sources not as a source itself. I can edit Wikipedia myself and I could put down anything, but using it to direct me to a source it is great.

[sdp]

wikipedia is very much trustworthy and has literally always been, just boomers didn't want to think it was "that easy" to get information. try to edit the page of World War II and the information will be edited back in less than a minute, if it even passes. I got great grades during university using wikipedia and using the sources they cited.

Clearly no one cites wikipedia as a source, just go to the citation of where they got that information. Obviously if you go to a very obscure article on a topic that no one visits and troll it like say an old tv show with 10 fans, it might take a while before it's reverted back but it still doesn't happen.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Wikipedia is great for FINDING sources not as a source itself.

This is very accurate, I agree.

[Leo656]

Psssssshhhh. It's "mostly-reliable" but I catch errors or misinformation on there all the time. Sometimes within the same paragraph there'll be two sentences which contradict each other entirely.

People also intentionally screw with it for goofs all the time. Once upon a time I was reading about the Sting vs. Black Scorpion angle from WCW in 1990, and they had "Joey Janela" listed as one of the guys who'd played Black Scorpion under the mask. Joey wasn't even born in 1990. Knowing Joey I'm sure that was an Edit he put in there just to jerk around, but it was up there for a while before anyone caught it.

That's just one example. Like Aqua said, I read it a ton just for recreation but it's definitely not "the last word" in like, anything. It's like "Cliff's Notes", you still need to dig a bit to get the full hard facts.

[sdp]

Wikipedia has less errors than encyclopedia britanica.. And yes a random match from a random show of a wrestling promotion that died over two decades ago would classify as "obscure". I might be wrong but I doubt anyone is going to that article for their college thesis though. Go to any academical page and you won't see silly **** as a cartoon for kids that has a fandom.

[Leo656]

It's not the "Obscure reference" that's the point.

You're trying to tell people Wikipedia is a bulletproof resource, and people are giving you examples why "No, it isn't." I gave one specific example as an anecdote; others exist. Even "important" topics on Wikipedia contain errors and can be Edited with false information on a whim.

You're tiresome.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by frank_one

This is very accurate, I agree.

There you go!