Is Wikipedia Reliable?

>>2388849
Wikipedia is good for bar arguments and a quick skim, but that's about it. I wouldn't even use it for general knowledge.

>bolshevikipedia
Trash.

Ocassional Wikipedia Editor Here:

Wikipedia is reliable when it comes to facts. Facts which can be easily checked. That is, birth dates, birth places etc.

When it comes to general knowledge, Wikipedia is very good.

Problems:

Wikipedia isn't as nuanced as original texts and lacks the tendency to take ALL interpretations into consideration.

Images, if not properly sourced on Wikipedia can be misleading.

When it comes to Philosophical articles, Wikipedia can de disastrously reductive and misinterpret complex concepts.

When an article is huge, you can tend to trust it, it means a lot of work has been put in and is constantly monitored. Also watch out in the top right for a symbol indicating the article's quality or a type of lock symbol which has been put there to stop vandalism.

Generally, it is fine but Wikipedia behind the surface has a lot of problems. The categories are all fucked up to an insane degree and the problem continues as the site gets larger.

>>2388869
Go back to where you came from, retard. You can edit it at any time and provide sources to justify your point.

>>2388877
Let's try and go for a get again.

also /pol/ is shit

>>2388869
*tips fedora*

>>2388898
In his defense, there is an astounding amount of Wikipedia editors that are open communists.

>>2388849

Increasingly less reliable desu. A few years ago it was a very reliable source, and it remains so for scientific questions, but on politics and history the bias has been piling up for a while now.

>>2388889
Almost checked

>>2388889
>BTFO by KEK

Also full house of 8's over 7's IS a GET, looks like you GOT greedy! Sad!

>>2388849
Wikipedia is great for its sources (which is usually at the bottom). Especially if they are online sources that you can check immediately.

Beyond that, take it with a grain of salt. Particularly on topics that can inflame people's opinions. Ideology, religion, nationalism, etc.

No.

Take the Kent Hovind page for example, it is full of lies, misrepresentations and slander.

Those that try to correct it are banned and silenced.

It's as reliable as the cited sources at the bottom of the page.