4 votes

Can I have moment of your time

I have a brief rant that I need to get off my chest, and I only need a minute of your time, or seconds of your time, depending on how fast you read. PLEASE!!!! PLEASE STOP using Wikipedia as a source for information! Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and has been proven to be unreliable! I get so tired of people trying to prove others wrong and then saying "here is the info from Wiki." If you read the Daily Paul, then you should be up to current events, therefore you should know by now that Wikipedia is a terrible source for facts. If you need facts on this, read below. Thank you for your time.





And for those who love wikipedia:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I always look at the sources provided.

I found out that the term "Libertarian" was not first used by Socialistic Anarchist through Wiki. Neat as Pete's pick turning.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.


is fine as a quick, cursory reference.

In fact my understanding is the majority of Wikipedia is edited by a dedicated team of people.

What I think you SHOULD have said is don't treat Wikipedia as an authority on facts.

Again, as a cursory reference it's great. If something doesn't quite seem accurate that's when you go to actual encyclopedias or other more suitable sources for authoritative accuracy.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wikipedia is fine

Don't paint with such a broad brush. And don't use just one source for your information.

If you want a full picture, you need multiple sources from multiple angles. As someone stated below, Wikipedia is an excellent starting point.

There are people out there that say: "Don't visit the Daily Paul! It is a terrible source for news!"

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Wikipedia is fine

when sources are provided. For example with the sandy hook wiki pages all 140+ sources are lame stream media reports. ALL HEARSAY.

Seems like a broad generalisation...

Yea there's some bad information on Wiki, but a lot of it is sourced. Keep an open mind and don't take what you read/hear as "gospel" until you can confirm the sources yourself. Just because there is bad information on Wiki, does not mean that ALL information is bad on Wiki.

Here's some WikiPedia for you :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Like anything, it all depends on how you use it.

I go to Wiki as a starting point for most things other than anything to do with Israel or anything or any body who does not swollow recent history, or has contradicting evidence outside of mainstream propaganda.

Wikipedia has been an

amazing wealth of information for me. It seems that critics of it tend to operate with a misconception that there is a source, somewhere out there, of the "actual" or "real" or "right" truth (dysfunctional Aristotelian concept that seems to promote intolerance). In the real world all things are always debatable and all sources are interpretations of data by unique human individuals. Change is constant. All information is always subject to change as information increases. We have no full knowledge, and therefore, no permanent truth on any one thing but we do our best as we continue striving for something closer to it. Wikipedia is not perfect, but, it may be a perfect reminder to us about the nature of "truth." Always check sources. Rather than to accept information as fact, perhaps it may better benefit one to view it in percentages of probability.

The chaos welcomes you.

Cyril's picture

Honestly, I wouldn't be so radical yet.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so radical yet.

I agree that as with any other sources, one has to be prudent. Or very prudent. But if I think of a few topics about which I had gathered a lot of information outside of WP (when not hands on experience), I can say you can still find fairly objective content on there.

It really depends on the topics at hands. The more factual and many more outgoing links to other records on the WWW are a good indicator of the overall objectivity, beyond the history of disputes on the page. Usually, you'll have to make your average out of the conflicts they will have with each other, then.

Some hard sciences are very well served by WP, others much less. It is very variable.

As for "softer" sciences (history, sociology, politics, economics, etc) well, granted: the greatest care is expected from the reader's side.

Just a guess, but if I had to bet, I'd say WP is overall more objective than snopes.com for instance, which I find more and more suspect/partisan as time goes. Or downright dumbing down at times. I stopped using that one long ago.

Just IMO.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

That would be me.

You mean that wasn't President Clinton?
He did't precede GW Bush and follow GHW Bush. Mh my!

There are errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary.

There a many errors in the NYT, retractions are not uncommon.

Consider the source and if it important, trust when verified.

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

LOL. Sometimes ENTIRE front-end SECTIONS of the NYT ARE an error

LOL. Sometimes, ENTIRE front-end SECTIONS of the NYT ***ARE** an error by themselves:


*Bam! Does not compute. Don't come back later.*

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Wikipedia is awsome

If you're using wikipedia to argue, good. That's what makes wikipedia better. No multiple listings means ideas and info have to compete in the free market for acceptance. Is there total BS there? You betcha. But at lease it has to survive under the scrutiny of anyone that's got internet access. But the best part is, it's not meant to be trusted, so it doesn't intend to breed suckers. Wikipedia is awesome.

You know

wiki is a bad place for information when public schools do not even allow you to use them as a source.lol


“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Because you might find some truth...

...that the public school intentionally doesn't teach? ;-)


If only that was the reason. Sadly, wiki can be edited to fit any persons view.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James


Good points.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15