Quote from EzDay281
I never said anything about correcting cited sources. I only specified checking those relevant ones and discarding the use of information which should be cited and is not or is inaccurately cited.
It makes it a poor choice of cited information, assuming you don't specify which version of an article you're citing, but the topic-post also asks about general reliability, where individual assesment can account for errors and inaccuracies.
According to frazz, all edits are documented. If he's correct, then while the current page for an article you cite may be incorrect, a logged one won't change.
It makes it a poor choice of cited information, assuming you don't specify which version of an article you're citing, but the topic-post also asks about general reliability, where individual assesment can account for errors and inaccuracies.
According to frazz, all edits are documented. If he's correct, then while the current page for an article you cite may be incorrect, a logged one won't change.
As for general reliability, which probably is the main intent of this topic, I have already said many times that it is something one can use for personal gain. Don't get me wrong here; wikipedia is great, it can infact give alot of information. If you are not sure of something, you are more than welcome to look at the cited sources at the bottom and even the history of the edits if you want to. If you already know the subject beforehand, you can even inspect some of these references (or just the wiki article itself) and correct things as need be. All of these things are wonderful things about wikipedia.
But, like I have been saying for my past few posts, wikipedia can't be used for formal presentations, like research papers for the reasons that I've stated already. These are also the same reasons teachers and professors wont allow you to use them as well.
Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Oct 24 2007, 8:13 am by MillenniumArmy.
None.