Back in high school they always taught us how horribly unreliable

>>135720594
Wikipedia is less reliable than:
>your parents
>the government
>a paid consultant

choose one.

>>135720594
Bad blood

>>135720594
Back then, anyone could edit it.
Nowadays, it's still partially true, but it's more controlled now with users no longer being anonymous.

The reality is that it's now considered a fairly credible source, since so many people use it and will inform/consult someone if they think something is incorrect.

>>135720594
Because it's an encyclopedia and encyclopedias have never been valid references

a lot of the citations and notations lead to scientific papers that aren't peer reviewed.

>>135721456
I find encyclopedia dramatica to be a trusty source

>>135722020
peer review literally means nothing.

File: pug.jpg (18KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 451x451px

>>135720594
High school teachers say that Wikipedia is "unreliable" because they want you to use other sources for your information. Why? If you practice seeking out multiple unrelated sources of information for a given topic and then sifting through what you find, you will develop the ability to discern fact from narrative/opinion.

Of course you didn't do this, so in spite of the fact that your high school teachers were encouraging you to develop your mind, you probably harbor suspicion or disdain for them.


If you scroll to the bottom of any page on Wikipedia, there are citations, but case in point: determining if the citations are actually credible is beyond the intellectual capacity of most high school students because they don't have experience synthesizing multiple disparate sources of information.

File: 1501539510719.png (20KB, 270x320px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 270x320px

>>135722136

People who say Wikipedia is unreliable = People who have been proved wrong by Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent source. But I say the same thing about Wikipedia that I say about all media - there should be some kind of intellectual cut-off point at which people aren't allowed to access mainstream information.

Most people - my estimate is around 95% - are incapable of discerning the information with which they are constantly inundated here in the "Information Age." Hell, most people are incapable of abstract thought, period.

Wikipedia has come a long way since its inception. It's still occasionally vandalized, but for myself, I can easily tell the difference between good information and misleading information, based on context and my own broad knowledge of life, the universe, and everything - relative to the general population of course.

>>135720594
Because it could be edited but then it would be edited back in like 5 minutes. My HS did this too it really isnt a big deal

>>135720594

the english wikipedia is pretty good

science articles are pretty reliable, other articles like history/politics show their bias more often than not but it's still a good source of information and you can always dig up the sources

>>135720594
where've you been anon? wikipedia is mankind's greatest achievement

>>135722720
>Hell, most people are incapable of abstract thought, period.
Preach

>>135721444
yeah it's controlled by left-wing faggots. all the articles that have to do with history, politics etc are all strongly biased.

>>135720594
>lied to your whole high school life
>lied to your whole life

Get used to it.

>>135720594

Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy most of the time.

Pro-tip: When writing papers, cite the sources Wikipedia links to the info rather than citing Wikipedia itself.

Even Jews do not trust Wikipedia due to other Zionist Jews editing articles.

"Not all Israel advocates agree. In 2010, the right-wing Israeli organization My Israel recruited activists to edit Israel-related Wikipedia articles and give them a Zionist slant. Wales said nothing came of the effort, though now only registered Wikipedia editors may edit the “Israel” entry."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-likes-israel-but-stays-neutral/

>>135720594
It has been on lockdown by SWJs for years. You are a fucking idiot if you think it is trustworthy.

>>135725027

Wikipedia's less subjective articles (science and math) are awesome, but fucking hell their political ones are awful.

Look at the talk pages for the golan heights to see the bad side of wikipedia.

>>135722306
this.sadly a poo has to this this post

>>135722720
Political articles and historical articles on wikipedia are heavily biased and thus unreliable.
The science stuff is fine though.

>>135720594

Idk, maybe look it up on wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

>>135722582
>humans can somehow not be corrupt when given ridiculous amounts of power
someone post the picture of the canadian professor that was fired and fined for trying to research circumcision.

>>135722720
>Hell, most people are incapable of abstract thought, period.
lol you literally just described goyim dude

its still pretty damn unreliable, but they only taught you that because old fat cunts who are school librarians are luddites

>>135722837
chinese wikipedia is better, even though its smaller. there's no 白左 fucking it up

Because they dont know how it works, if you try to edit whatever it just gets reverted back within 5 seconds by a mod

>>135724589
better pro-tip: use a research search engine like google scholar, and then use zotero notebook to collect citations. even if you don't read the article in question, if you find one behind a paywall you can assert it says anything you want and the teacher won't be able to fact check it, if they even go that far

>>135720594
It is. When you have editors who are:
- biased on topic they're making/editing; just doing it for whatever reason (agenda, etc.)
- anyone could edit
- often poorly sourced; uses biased/unreliable sources
- don't quote/paraphrase/summarize/cite properly
- egomaniacs who will compromise the integrity and the objectivity of the article just because they like their edit and will control who edits their monitored/created articles

>>135722136
This. All that means is that it's Jew-approved.
>(((Academia's))) seal of approval, which means it's pushing some kind of (((shenanigans)))

>>135722720
Nice try, (((you))). (((You))) will be silenced soon.
>It's still occasionally vandalized
Oh, so predictable.

>>135720594
It can be reliable. The sources listed at the bottom of the pages are pretty handy when writing papers for school.

>>135723569
examples?

File: 6986e684-d598-4eb4-936a-f223fde13c98.png (450KB, 1164x1775px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1164x1775px

>>135720594

>>135728521
That first image is a fucking joke,even if he had his legs touching it's not like it'd generate an extra seat.

>>135720594
Books are written by humans too
That's all you need to know about credibility

File: 1498320653617.jpg (107KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1300x957px

don't know, it's banned here.

File: 1472552069855.png (135KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x1000px

>>135729701
Thanks to our glorious leader, we can never be subverted to the West disinfo shilling.
REJOICE