Why do people think wikipedia is a reliable source?
452056
Because many people are under the (false) impression that the internet in general is a reliable source for information.  Also, its much easier to punch a subject into a search engine and use the answer that comes up, than to actually look for a reliable resource and read through it to find the information you need.
452958
I am almost always disappointed when Wikipedia is used by my students as a source in an academic paper, and I generally warn my students against using it.  I agree with the person above who wrote that wiki articles often include basic bibliographies that can lead students to more useful sources, but in many cases, the information to be found on Wikipedia is less than satisfying.\n\nFor example, one student of mine used the wiki entry on "cargo cults," and the information he found there was misleading, and certainly not reflective of current scholarship on the subject.  Because Wikipedia is an online source that is updated often, my student thought that the information it contained would be "cutting edge."  This was a bad assumption to make.  We ended up using it in class discussion as an instructive example of the problems with Wikipedia.\n\nAcademia runs on the principle of peer review.  This means that everything a scholar attempts to publish is reviewed for integrity and quality by recognized reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the field.  The basic problem with Wikipedia is the absence of a uniform, reliable, standardized peer review process.  In other words, the "policing" is insufficient, because Wikipedia articles are not reviewed by recognized experts in the fields in question. \n\nOne final note:\nWhy don't more scholars contribute to Wikipedia themselves and make it a better site?  Well, in some cases they actually do, for the sake of students who might consult the site, but in most cases, they don't, because it wouldn't "count" as a valid publication effort, because it's not a standard, peer-reviewed endeavor!\n\n(Sorry for the length of this response, but I thought it was an important question that deserved a thoughtful reply.)
608084
The name comes from wiki and encyclopedia\n\nWikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/, /ˌwiki-/, or /ˌwɪkə-/) is an international Web-based cooperative free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, a type of website that allows visitors to edit its content; the word Wikipedia itself is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia and is often abbreviated to WP by its users. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a computer, web browser and Internet connection.\n\nThe project began on January 15, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 3,800,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,156,000 in the English-language version. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity[1] and has spawned several sister projects.\n\nWikipedia's most controversial style policy is that editors are required to uphold a "neutral point of view", under which notable perspectives are purportedly summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. Application of this policy has proven difficult to enforce consistently.\n\nWikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has called Wikipedia "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[2] However, there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference of consensus or popularity over credentials. Nevertheless, its free distribution, constant updates, diverse and detailed coverage, and numerous multilingual versions have made it one of the most-used reference resources available on the Internet.
25739
Wikipedia (pronounced as [ˌwiˑkiˈpidi.ə] or [ˌwɪki-], also [-ɐ]) is a multi-lingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with an internet connection and added by anyone with a Wikipedia member account. The project began on January 15, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 2,000,000 articles, including 850,000 in the English-language version. Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,[1] and has spawned several sister projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews.\n\nEDIT:\nAnswer to the author's clarification:\nI know what your question was, it was just a joke :)
100029
when in doubt, go to wikipedia.
334593
Lesson learned, maybe the people answering your questions are not to be trusted?  Always consider the source!
1034261
Bias? I was told in college courses NOT to use Wikipedia as a source because the info is not always creditable or accurate. Never been there, now I see it's at the bottom of this page! Could it be a part of Yahoo? I'll be back!!!!  \nYes, I checked out half a dozen terms of fact, and somebody is definatly out of their mind.\nSome pretty twisted "facts" of history there!\n\nI think we should complain to yahoo directly!!\nMaybe the higher ups have better educations!!!!\nThese jokers are contradicting themselves, and writing their own versions of history! BIAS!!!
513604
One of the most useful websites is www.wikipedia.com
249440
The correct answer is "Wikipedia rocks!"
975808
of course it is, probably the most reliable online fact file, considering it is compiled by thousands of individuals with first hand knowledge.
357258
Not completely. One should never trust only ONE source of information. They may not have every fact on the subject and a single view can be biased. Try a few different sources and get a more well rounded take on it.
890140
Wikipedia is a great and reliable source of information.  The question as you pose it is much to broad to guide you with any specific direction.  However, again, wikipedia will get you started just fine.
15349
you could get information in wikipedia..
381303
It depends, some scientific searches are very accurate but some History articles are really biased or just plain lies.\n\nI remember at the beginning of the television era how people believed that everything that came from TV was true. Now it is happening with the internet that it is a great way to obtain information but you have to do your homework are check if it is accurate.
265658
Yes. Without encyclopedia, I don't think sources online would have came. In public schools, I mean, they use old-fashioned encyclopedias. People are depending things to the electric way, but they should keep in mind how things are first done.
46897
I think wikipedia is great.  The previous poster is not correct.  Wikipedia is cooperatively checked by readers and other other authors who often continuously revise articles. (Just look at the edit history and the competing edits).  The information is not 100% correct but neither is the information in any professionally edited and checked resource. \n\nI do agree that sometimes articles contain too much bias and not enough facts, but, if you look at the tone of the article and see the referenced sources, you can begin to get an idea of how good or not good a particular article is.\n\nIf someone feels that there is a biased representation of information or if the information is plagarized, readers of Wikipedia are encouraged to raise a red flag and the articles will be marked as such and scrutized further.  Here's the page for providing just this kind of feedback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem\n\n\nDespite this, by and large, for the things that I do know something about, Wikipedia often has the greatest concentration of accurate, well written, fully detailed information that you are likely to encounter on the web on a given subject.  The reason is simple, because, rarely does only one "expert" contribute to an article.  It is usually the collective efforts of many people with information to contribute.\n\n\nNow, as for the wikipedia pages not loading today.  It looks like they may have had some form of system failure either due to too much load, system crashes, or a software bug introduced.  I encountered errors this morning right after editing a Wiktionary article on PETE.  It does look to be better now.
174831
Wikipedia has some good articles...