Wikipedia's credibility acknowledged

..finally some good press on the quality of it's content

[dillonstars]

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

It seemed like all the news about the credibility of the content on Wikipedia was bad news... so this new research will be a breath of fresh air for it's fans and advocates :)

[stef25]

i find wikipedia an excellent source of information, esp when looking for sources to write content for the web.

whatever your topic is, you can probably find leads on wikipedia about it

[Matt Probert]

Only thing. The journal "nature" is completely unreliable rubbish. And I don't hold Britannica's scientific coverage in high-esteem either. There is a world of difference between telling people what they want to hear, and the facts. That Wikipedia is peer maintained does mean it is liable to domiannt ideology. Just another case of tell the plebs what they want, the basic principle of seaside fortune tellers and bogus mystics the world over.

If you want reliable data, then follow these two rules:

1) Don't trust anything you read
2) Cross-reference and research for yourself.

Hoever, if you want to get rich, sell (tell) people what they want to buy (hear).

Matt
Former independent research scientist and investigator

[timchuma]

I also recommend starting your own archive including off-line resource material if there is a subject you are interested in. Very few articles seem to use primary and secondary sources these days.

I have a big book of widget reviews for one of my website that I use to look up some details without having to go to the web (so I can write offline.)

Thanks.