-"Homer and history": totally obsolete. I understand that most of the stuff written is by mundane people, but the fact that an overwhelming amount of people have confronted me that the site has little value to knowledge absolutely astounds me. If you're relying on "feelings" then Wikipedia is not a good source at all, you need to rely on actual citations. Strictly, if you must compare Quora, you should be comparing it with Ask or Yahoo answers. ._2cHgYGbfV9EZMSThqLt2tx{margin-bottom:16px;border-radius:4px}._3Q7WCNdCi77r0_CKPoDSFY{width:75%;height:24px}._2wgLWvNKnhoJX3DUVT_3F-,._3Q7WCNdCi77r0_CKPoDSFY{background:var(--newCommunityTheme-field);background-size:200%;margin-bottom:16px;border-radius:4px}._2wgLWvNKnhoJX3DUVT_3F-{width:100%;height:46px} .c_dVyWK3BXRxSN3ULLJ_t{border-radius:4px 4px 0 0;height:34px;left:0;position:absolute;right:0;top:0}._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3{-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-ms-flex-pack:start;justify-content:flex-start;margin-top:32px}._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3 ._33jgwegeMTJ-FJaaHMeOjV{border-radius:9001px;height:32px;width:32px}._1OQL3FCA9BfgI57ghHHgV3 ._1wQQNkVR4qNpQCzA19X4B6{height:16px;margin-left:8px;width:200px}._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx{display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;margin:12px 0}._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx ._29TSdL_ZMpyzfQ_bfdcBSc{-ms-flex:1;flex:1}._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx .JEV9fXVlt_7DgH-zLepBH{height:18px;width:50px}._39IvqNe6cqNVXcMFxFWFxx ._3YCOmnWpGeRBW_Psd5WMPR{height:12px;margin-top:4px;width:60px}._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN{height:18px;margin-bottom:4px}._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._2E9u5XvlGwlpnzki78vasG{width:230px}._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN.fDElwzn43eJToKzSCkejE{width:100%}._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._2kNB7LAYYqYdyS85f8pqfi{width:250px}._2iO5zt81CSiYhWRF9WylyN._1XmngqAPKZO_1lDBwcQrR7{width:120px}._3XbVvl-zJDbcDeEdSgxV4_{border-radius:4px;height:32px;margin-top:16px;width:100%}._2hgXdc8jVQaXYAXvnqEyED{animation:_3XkHjK4wMgxtjzC1TvoXrb 1.5s ease infinite;background:linear-gradient(90deg,var(--newCommunityTheme-field),var(--newCommunityTheme-inactive),var(--newCommunityTheme-field));background-size:200%}._1KWSZXqSM_BLhBzkPyJFGR{background-color:var(--newCommunityTheme-widgetColors-sidebarWidgetBackgroundColor);border-radius:4px;padding:12px;position:relative;width:auto} level 1. Vandalism. ._3bX7W3J0lU78fp7cayvNxx{max-width:208px;text-align:center} It's frustratingly hard to get accurate information on a topic, and if no one cares enough to dig then misinformation can survive for long periods of time. It depend of the level of reliability you want. It can be both a very reliable source or a very unreliable source, depending on who is using it and how they are using it. I mean, let's look something up about Hawking radiation. Explaining Confidence Intervals. I love Wikipedia, it is one of the wonderful things the internet has blessed us with. Your best bet is to know your Court. Wikipedia is a very reliable place for information. Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of liberal bias, deceit, edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia.The atheist Jimmy Wales was the leading founder of Wikipedia. How can I explain to my mom, that wikipedia is a reliable source? Wikipedia claims that the donations are needed to keep the site online. Well you can just omit to add that particular fact to the article. If we have the citations to primary/secondary sources then whoever they are we know they have as much to back up their claims as any professional encyclopedia writer would have. Sure, it's written by everyday people, but it has a sophisticated enough moderation to make it as truthful as possible in which I find a highly reliable source of knowledge. I just don't have time at work and thanks to /u/deathnotice01 I've realized that I won't have time after work either. Re-writing the whole thing from scratch? Sure, it's GENERALLY reliable, but what if some random guy messed it up five minutes before you look at it? -/u/Mr_Penguino67 ~reddit bot No, because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isnt a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to. A place where you can gauge the content of these sources by reading the Wikipedia article, while keeping in mind that it's likely biased? A full month after that milestone objective, over 24,000 biographies of living people still lurked on Wikipedia with not so much as a single reliable source to back up the content. edit: Went to bed and didn't expect to find out so much about wikipedia, thanks fam. Whoever shows up and decides they want to do it, and does it without making too many other people mad, generally gets to edit that article. save. You can imagine how fast more important information might change or be altered. 21 comments. I would also definitely disagree with the idea that wikipedia "has little value to knowledge". So we end up with the verifiable, but obsolete Homer page you see today, and that's just one small thing important thing out of 1000's of things. I don't mean to discredit it (in fact I agree it's a big cause), I'm saying that it's being approached in an unencyclopedic way. Students, who are already heavily in debt, are urged to donate in case Wikipedia "disappears". Wikipedia was more unreliable in its earlier days and a lot of people still remember how often it was wrong. Not to mention, that often times people will site sources which are just false information. This is why I treat Wikipedia as more of a resource hub, more like a thorough, article-sized Googling of a topic that links me to some info pages. .FIYolDqalszTnjjNfThfT{max-width:256px;white-space:normal;text-align:center} Sort by . At worst they have to make an account first, but most articles can be edited without even a login. This thread is archived.
Best Animal Leather, Best French Butter Dish, How Could Anyone Accomplish God's Command To Be Blameless, Brownie Sundae Calories, Audi Tt Rs Mobile De, Thar Price In Jaipur 2020,