[Matt]

War Room posters frequently cite wikipedia as their source. What do you think about this? Is it legit to cite it?

If it helps frame the discussion, I read this article on wikipedia a while back: New Yorker Article

Personally, I think wikipedia is good for general info but beyond that I take it with a grain of salt. I think it's acceptable to quote it in the WR in a general info sort of way. However, if I were doing actual research, or getting into hardcore numbers, I'd be more inclined to cite sources like credible mainstream media, academia, government surveys, etc. Of course, you could call the credibility and bias of those sources into question too but...Given the free reign nature of wikipedia I'd still feel more comfortable with those other sources.

[HeadBanger]

Wikipedia is not a source you want to use for serious work, but for here it's cool. My reasoning is that it sets the ground work. Anyone can dispute it with a better source. Usually I know what I'm talking about so I know what I'm going to get.

[chardog]

Wiki as a source tends to have a lot of untruthful truths. It's like all media, subject to bias. It's helpful on occasion, but it could be a whole lot better.

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

wikipedia was bad in the past but it looks like they cleaned it up...plus everything in there has a source that can be looked up just incase....is wikipedia the final authority ? no but its a great start

[Chthon]

As a person who has been editing Wikipedia in his free time for almost two years, I can tell you with no exaggeration that it is absolutely, positively, NOT a reliable source.

It's basically a place for children to argue about pop culture and for fringe ideologues and anybody with an axe to grind in general to push their own personal opinions (especially on articles about current political events and organized religion).

If you want to look up the budget for filming Iron Man or how many records Frank Sinatra recorded or the population of Bolivia, then it's the best thing out there. If you want serious academic information on a relevant topic then don't be fooled by their citation process, it's crap and so are their admins.

[PornoSatan]

When it comes to non-political matters Wikipedia is the best thing that has ever happened to the internet. As far as bias goes, it doesn't have much that I notice.

[HeadBanger]

Pretty good for scientific stuff, too.

[MicroBrew]

Wiki is ok for benign info, i.e. say you want a quick summary on TIG welding, not like there is going to be biases and controversy. Now if you want info on history, religion, wars, civilizations, cultures etc.... then I approach Wiki very cautiously and only use it as a quick source as long as there I already have researched several other reputable sources.

I have never sourced Wiki here, and pretty sure I never will......unless maybee it is info of a benign nature.

[Zankou]

I think it's actually quite good for non-controversial stuff.

And not too bad for controversial stuff either.

[Marsupial]

Originally Posted by Chthon

If you want to look up the budget for filming Iron Man or how many records Frank Sinatra recorded or the population of Bolivia, then it's the best thing out there. If you want serious academic information on a relevant topic then don't be fooled by their citation process, it's crap and so are their admins.

Yeah, that's how I feel about it.

Tend to use it to get quick info on films, bands or mindless trivia (list of generic product names was surprisingly intriguing).

It also taught me the name of the sex act 'Lucky Pierre', which I deeply regret not taking as a username.

If I am on there trying to uncover decent info I tend to follow whatever sources the articles list and whatever links they have.