How reliable or accurate is Wikipedia?

The problem with Wikipedia’s accuracy is that, overall, it is reliable, but it has enough mistakes/falsehoods/deceptions/opinions that it loses credibility.

I use it for two things:
1) information on non-controversial subjects, and
2) a first step to find credible sources.

I would agree with the above assesment

If I’m remembering it correctly, virtually anyone in the world is allowed to “add to the facts” of any Wikipedia posting. I’m not sure if these ‘enhancements’ are monitored for accuracy, then deleted when necessary, or just stay there permanently.

I do know that (for as long as it stays on there) if I say that Trump’s “beautiful wall” has now been completed, a lot of people in Arizona and New Mexico will go running to their windows to behold the grandeur of still another kept campaign promise….

Not to used for reference in scholarly writings (I’ve seen footnotes referring to Wikipedia – - -SMH)

Questionable I hear.

Basically what @zenvelo said. I use Wiki regularly for technical stuff, like if I want information about video games or movies, or if I want to know what a certain “ism” is in philosophy or where do albino titmice live…however I use it as quick reference and then check out what links there are at the bottom. If Wiki cannot be a good source of links, then I refine my search, but it usually delivers.

As far as opinion or subjective stuff goes, well I don’t know. If it’s ghosts and aliens and crap it’s going to be opinions everywhere you go lol.

I agree with above. It’s useful to a point. I’ll look to Wikipedia to get a general sense of whatever I’m looking up, or to find non-controversial facts that I assume will be accurate (especially dates).

Follow the citations for any piece of information you want to lean on. Sometimes the citation will lead you to a valuable, interesting source. Sometimes the disconnect between the citation and the source is surprising… I’ve seen the source material taken out of context or misrepresented, etc., and I always wonder if the citer did so accidentally or deliberately.

It’s like the clever kid at school who knows shit but has no interest in the subject matter.

It’s generally pretty reliable. The pool of Wikipedia users often includes academics and experts in various fields who contribute to it’s pages. And while anybody can edit, Wikipedia’s userbase do a generally good job of policing the site. Flagrant misinformation tends to not last long, especially on pages related to politics, science, etc. The information on there tends to be well-sourced as well.

Generally, I find it reliable. I just wish it would use simpler language. It sounds too much like a textbook.

@AshlynM

There’s always the Simple English Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia as a starting point when I want to get the gist of what something is about. However, I wouldn’t use it beyond that. And I’ve seen a number of pages where there is inaccurate or deliberately incorrect information. For instance, someone has listed complete bullshit under the alumni list for my university. I saw a page the other day that had been similarly changed for someone’s amusement.

@Earthbound_Misfit Yeah, I’ve heard people are quick to fix misinformation, (to the best of their knowledge) and stupid jokes and whatnot. But that doesn’t stop the alterations being thee are the time.

I use Wikipedia a lot as it is very comprehensive and up to date. Considering how it is compiled it is also surprisingly accurate but I wouldn’t trust it completely.