How accurate is Wikipedia?

[Castor_Troy05]

Wait, his name isn't really Buddy Wood? My whole life is a lie

[danthepoetman]

[Dino Velvet]

Wikipedia is Walmart for information. Plenty good enough for one-stop shop as long as your standards aren't very discriminatory. Aren't the actual Wikipedia volumes made in China? Never home when the guy knocks on my door trying to sell me a set.

[danthepoetman]

It's made by people online, of course. And I think there's very few people to oversee or supervise it. The best is still Britanica, of course, for really accurate infos. But still, I find it great to have it at hand at all time. It gives you a good sense of what is talked about on any topic and point in the right direction for the very least.
In French we have the highly regarded Encyclopoedia Universalis, but it's sometimes so vain, so full of showcasing and in the end, often so abstruse that I almost prefer something like Wiki. Most of the time you don't need in depth infos anyways...

[natina]

colleges and universities do not allow you to use wiki as a authority or factual source because anyone can edit its contents

[danthepoetman]

colleges and universities do not allow you to use wiki as a authority or factual source because anyone can edit its contents

Oh! no, indeed, Natina. You're absolutely right. That's a whole different thing. Wiki is for fast researches, for when you want to be enlighten on some subject immidiately. It's not scholarly. A Wiki page is never exhaustive enough anyways.

[Stavros]

A good wiki page has a wide range of references and links, sometimes to web-pages of pdf files of articles and so on. I don't know if students are not allowed to cite them in course work here, it would be odd in a way because some of those pages are written by academics.

[danthepoetman]

A good wiki page has a wide range of references and links, sometimes to web-pages of pdf files of articles and so on. I don't know if students are not allowed to cite them in course work here, it would be odd in a way because some of those pages are written by academics.

It's true that the references are sometimes very impressive. Definitely sufficent, often, for a good base if not a thourough one for a reaserch on a given topic. But the articles often change through time, they're modified, political rectitude being one of the frequent motives. Also, I think Wikipedia only has a few dozen people supervizing these changes and the publication of the articles. As a tool, it's fabulous; as an academic reference, it's normal that there would be some reservations, I suppose.
Personaly, I use it a lot, generally speaking, but especially when I read specialized articles, in order to find explanations on particulars which are essential for the comprehension of the whole.

[Odelay]

Sienna Grace deserves a thread all to herself, she's that stunning. Radius, where do you find all the fantastic models you seem to get to first? And most of them seem both brainy and beautiful judging by BTS interviews, twitter, etc. So maybe the smart ones know how to google and find you while the dumb ones kind of crash and burn. But seriously, what are your scouting secrets to finding these amazing girls?

[Jericho]

Wikipedia says i have a ten inch cock...It's *that* accurate!