Is Wikipedia Actually Credible?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 дек 2016
- We've all been told that Wikipedia isn't a good source for research, but how can it have such high quality information and yet still be susceptible to user vandalism? Naturally, the answer involves robots.
Whoopsy by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Artist: audionautix.com/ 
Наука
Cite the sources on wikipedia, not wikipedia
This. Always, always, always check their sources.
Rule of thumb: If they're citing a blog, dismiss the whole page.
@@OuroborosChoked Blogs on a subject such as history can sometimes cite a source, so if the source you have found for information on the blog is credible then go ahead and use the source.
@@Lillybellll That also becomes a problem for me sometimes, but that's because, ultimately, it's really up to the person who is using the source to make the judgment on whether it should be used.
My experience tells me to check and see if it is an actual published source first and not a blog; do a read through of the article or newspaper (if it's obviously bogus then you'd know to not use it). And if you're still not sure, compare it with different sources just to see if they don't say different things. Hope this helps!
@@Lillybellll No problem! Glad I could help!
Oh dang that’s smart
I love the subtle humor in this 😝
“...find other sources to plagiarize from!”
"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you're getting the best information."
~Michael Scott
Rip.. back when trolling wasn't popular
"Dwight you ignorant slut"
~Also Michael Scott
@Lizard King So by yours and Michael Scott's logic, A Neo-Nazi who creates a page offers you the best information on WW2, the Holocuast, and Hitler? Idiot.
@@badweetabix No, cos there are simply too many sane people on Wiki and straightaway boot out any neo-Nazis
I like Wikipedia as a source for brief facts and expanded definitions. When it comes to online arguments over politics and economics, a lot of basic stuff often has to be covered just to present your argument, never mind backing it up. For a more thorough work, such as a research paper or something, then yes, you need more in-depth sources that have more details and information. Even then, as you point out, Wikipedia is a good place to start your search for other sources.
And I love it when people say things like "didn't they teach you in school not to use Wikipedia"? Um, no, when I was in school, there *was no* internet, much less a Wikipedia site. So much has changed since 1965, when I was born.
Once in a while you find an article on Wikipedia that is utterly ridiculous and even the citations aren't credible. This site is still edited by non experts. So you have to be careful. There's even circles and groups of people who secretly get paid to sabotage and edit certain articles on Wikipedia for the sponsor's advantage. Which is wrong and against the rules.
There was once an admin who created more than 80,000 edits referencing "boobs" or some permutation of "tits" in random articles over a period of 9 years.
Any reference to THAT article?
@@thegamingofM.S.KNah, they all got fixed.
Funny if you believe, one of my teachers took of points for someone citing encyclopedia Britannica, even though she tells us to use the periodic tables in the planners the school gives us, and the table cities encyclopedia Britannica
Most teachers nowadays are not too bright.
All they looking for is some mindless left-wing echo chamber and you're hired as a teacher. i'm a citizen from the Netherlands. I think it applies for all western countries.
SE45CX I’m in high school in Alabama rn and the opposite is definitely true here. I’m in a really good school for my area and just about every male teacher here has anger issues or is an awful teacher, but stays for coaching football.... lots of praying in classes and getting everyone or forcing them to close their eyes.... not teaching certain things that are required because they don’t agree its great
@@SE45CX I know this is 4 years old, but damn is this still true. Now with an even greater teacher shortage, any fly off the wall that fits the agenda is hired.
"no, I'm pretty sure it's a banana" love it!!
@James Hart and you'll be coming with me 😉
The problem seems to be with how high schools assign research papers. At that level, they are only asking for background information. When it comes to college level research assignments, however, professors want detailed papers about the subject, not background information that anyone can find in an Encyclopedia or on Wikipedia.
This happens in middle school too.
one big problem with wikipedia is when someone edits in something completely false and other people begin citing it before anyone can remove the false claim. there's been a few cases where people have edited famous people's wikipedia pages around the time they died and journalists who visited those pages assumed it was true and reported it when they wrote obituaries
Don't forget about the Burger King commercial that activated Google Home
This could be resolved with either machine learning, or an OpenXanadu-like implementation
Responsible journalists fact-check their sources...one source really isn't enough for good, trustworthy media outlets.
The BLP policy since around 2011/2012 is VERY tough, thanks to several well-covered media scandals because of vandalism on biography pages. Really, you should worry more about any sort of fictional pop culture. I'm a member of scientific wikiprojects (mostly about computing) and pop culture wikiprojects, and pop culture articles tend to be horrendously written, untrue, opinion based, etc. I should know, I'm one of the people that tag them for cleanup and rewrite them.
ClarkWGrisJr I think Wikipedia let that slide since they were pissed of at burger king
How come you haven't got any more subscribers? Your content is easily better than the rubbish stuff on the main page.
because he‘s not hyperactive.
Swixen He doesn't scream into a microphone while doing the latest dumb trend/challenge.
I remember when I was in school in the 1980s, the hard and fast rule was NEVER use encyclopedias as sources for school papers. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia itself, then I figure its non-usage in school as a source should be obvious in that regard alone. Anyways, I always like to think that while it should not be considered the last word on anything, it can be the first word to further reading in resources, and even better make corrections as necessary.
One thing you neglected to mention is that Wikipedia has a plethora of tools at the user's disposal for verifying information, including but not limited to...
* Citations (mentioned), which lead you directly to the sources used.
* Discussion Pages, which can provide valuable insight to controversial edits and reasoning for certain moderator decisions, like an article being locked. In addition to that, it allows people to discuss the article itself, potentially allowing you to talk directly to the person who made that edit you have so many questions about.
* Revision History, the page itself and the talk page both have their own revision history, so it's easy to tell if vandalism has occurred by checking the history
* The 'Recent Edits' Special page, which lists every recent edit made on every single article on the site, by order of date, which maintainers of the site use to audit new edits, meaning you can't even slip a subtle typo past them (trust me, I've tried).
All the information and context are laid out, clear as day, for the savvy reader to determine whether the information can be trusted or not.
4 things you neglected is: 1) Who verified the source is legitimate? I've found plenty of fraudulent citations and even sources that does not exists. 2) Discussion does not tell you whether a statement is true or false. 3) Savvy readers don't use Wikipedia - only the lazy ones too lazy to actually do the research. 4)
@@badweetabix You forgot to put number 4. Nothing ruins a argumentative attempt like not finishing it
Nah it's a trash site
@@badweetabix where’s Number 4?
If it's not credible, it's incredible
No shit
@Larry Z Its shit atleast in recent times editors propgate their agenda through it.
@Larry Z Dead joke U must be admin on wiki.
@Atheist I sometimes hate right wing as much as I hate Wikipedia.
The problem with Wikipedia is the lack of consistency throughout the articles. Some are excellently written with reliable resources. Others, however, uses sources like Salon.com and Buzzfeed - those are not reliable sources.
At the bottom of the articles on wikipedia are links to the cited sources, you can cite the good sources you see down there for your paper.
Depends on what are you writing. Most basic essays can mostly rely on Wikipedia articles. Dunno what pages you visited, but a lot of Wikipedia entries really do go in more depth than they actually should or need to.
Citation needed.
Obviously it's not flawless, but it is still way much better as a source than my aunt's opinion or that dude at the coffee shop affirming this or that randomly. As a base source to have a general idea on a subject, in a matter of seconds, it's pretty unbeatable.
Back in university days for some subjects I used to read wiki article about subject and don't bother what lecturer is telling, passed tests with scores above average.
This is a good idea for history and social science classes, but terrible for math/physics/computer science classes, since those require actual practice going well beyond the scope of a Wikipedia articles.
Then again, even math and physics textbooks occasionally have typos and minor factual errors.
@@lorax121323 quite oposite, one can learn computer science without even being enrolled in university.
Teachers don't have a problem with students using it, or at least they shouldn't. The problem comes when students are making papers and are citing Wikipedia as a source. It's bad because, in some cases, the author of the information is not credited. In school, that's not a direct question, but it will later on if it becomes a habit. For master or doctorate papers, not citing a source might lead to the invalidation of your whole paper, and in other cases, you can suffer legal actions.
Generally, Wikipedia is very credible, even more credible than most encyclopedias. But the application is important. If you're a lawyer, you can't afford to make your research on Wikipedia, it can be a starting point, but not a credible source, the laws change a lot, you don't know if they got updated. But if you are curious about something, or you want to do some quick fact check, Wiki it's great.
I used wikipedia for almost everything in school. It is WAYY better than a simple google search. And for stuff like chemistry and like, the renissance, it is 100% a correct and reliable source. Teachers would walk by me and see wikipedia on my laptop and scoff, but later give me an A and see no wikipedia cited in my works cited. Use wikipedia and donate boys its actually a blessing.
It's really funny to look at the sources that are listed at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. Sometimes you press on one source, that site lists another source, that site lists another source and that source is a boulevard news article or something equally "trustworthy" that doesn't list a source at all.
When researching, double and triple checking on facts and not just trusting in one source is very important. Trying to work against your own confirmation bias (everyone has it) is also important.
Wikipedia is a great too for high-level, broad understanding of a particular topic. You can then use that to narrow down your search in more reputable sources like a library database or Google Scholar.
you are the best informational youtuber under 100K
0:30 The Monty Python "Encyclopedia Salesman" sketch comes to mind.
I prefer the uncyclopedia
same
recyclopedia ftw
Dramatica.
boi speedy deletion wiki is the best, much more accurate than both of them.
teachers just want to make it harder than it needs to be to do everything... they're teaching you to follow idiotic instructions without question.
Too right, bro.
every teachers? bruh my classmates are dumb asf and complain too much and the teacher is trying its best
for the students to actually do something.
Nov - kun Seems your English teacher wasn't an example...
@@crazyswag2153 lol thanks
Wikipedia also has an unfair skew on information
Your stuff is so good. I hope you blow up. :)
Rift Music xD that escalated quickly
Rift Music lol
LordBaNZa
This is the best worst comment I have ever seen.
Rift Music i was thinking the same thing
That could be interpreted very badly.
3:13 thank you for the keying exercise
Teachers hate Wikipedia because it does their job for them
Yeah the lazies love wiki
it was at that moment they knew they @!#%#$ up
lol, this probably is true
@@marcduchamp5512 wiki lies a lot . Once I went a on a source that went on it again and it changed.
If there's a single student who thinks Wikipedia is their teacher, that's lamentable.
1:50
Yes, Anti-vandal bots like ClueBot NG can revert only about 1/3 of vandalism. This is why we have RCP recent changes patrolling.
its 2AM and i was typing my report watching this video, oh boi
Love your videos
My comment before I watch: some article are,some aren't.
No.
Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No
Basically, the easier a subject is to discuss, the more errors you're going to see, because all the idiots will think they're experts and jump right in to screw it up. It's the same for guitar sheet music. The most difficult songs are transcribed perfectly, while Nirvana/Green Day tabs are completely off the mark.
Don’t cite Wikipedia
Cite Wikipedia’s sources
Cite
My school is banned from editing Wikipedia articles
my school had someone spam SHREKSHREKSHREKSHREKSHREKSHREKSHREKSHREKSHREK until they got global blocked
Why?
I was told not to use wikipedia as a source. Rather than not using it entirely we were told to go down to the sources and read those instead. It's better to get information from as close to the source as possible, anyway.
Wikipedia is now allowed at my school as of early 2015, use it all the time :p
KevinCS I got an f using it never again
Don't cite Wikipedia next time; cite the citations Wikipedia got the information from, and you'll get that proper grade.
how do you get an F using wikipedia wtf? you must have just been really bad at answering the question.
Or the teacher specifically said not to cite Wikipedia and the person did anyway, guaranteeing a fail.
deepdiarrhea my Neuroscience professor recommended Wikipedia as a learning resource. But for real research projects, it wouldn't be allowed, because that isn't how science works right now.
Wish I had a teacher who said "Don't use Wikipedia".
WHEN I come from, we had to use books. Probably used books from a library, books that were sometimes outdated and useless for the research at hand. If they had the book you were looking for at all. Years later, you find a book borrowed from a public library couple decades ago and decide to burn the evidence.
Don't get me started on ATMs now... lol
My view of Wikipedia, is that it can be a really useful source, but it does have to also be approached with caution. A small group with a vested interest of any sort, can easily wield far too much influence over content. Also, you too often get two extreme binary positions fighting for control of the page, with the result being an imbalanced page which over focuses on the atypical extremes.
Citation needed.
Yes, I agree. It's awesome for finding sources.
Very informational.
Could you link the studies?
I get that you should not have wikipedia as your main source for your thesis, however, when my teacher says i got to hold a class presentation about a country or something that kasts 3 minutes in one week, and then follows up with, and dont use wikipedia, i am just going to not site it. Wikipedia lists simple facts so well on the side and is well written, and can easily be backed up by other sources.
TL;DR
yes, it is fixed by bots and specific editors
What do you mean? We're intellegent of course.
It's fine to question the credibility of any wikipedia page, that is why I always look at the citations and footnotes listed whenever I'm using it as a reference source.
The fundamental way Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) is structured is both a blessing, and, sometimes, a curse
Britannica called Railways "Railroads"
Wikipedia isn’t a valid source because it’s an encyclopedia. It pulls information from other sources, and thus you should cite THAT source, not Wikipedia
alright, the song used near the end is not Whoopsy
Wikipedia Is Better Than Physical Encyclopedia
Because Wikipedia Articles Are Updated While The Physical Encyclopedia Are Not
When the vandals overwhelmed the reverting editors with too many vandal edits, it was a human form of DOS attack.
adtc then they get blocked
Teachers still finna be like "NOT CREDIBLE!!!" And slap you into your seat.
You can use Wikipedia but be sure to check the sources, common logic
The truth has two sides
Wikipedia is free for people to edit. And the information you have to fact check really accurate and unbiased. When teachers say not accurate they say it to do more research haha
if it's as good as an encyclopedia... then why isn't it worth using for copying and pasting...
why even get an encyclopedia...
I remember that our teacher asked for good sources of information and learning. So I said RUclips, she said it was a brilliant idea. Then I said Wikipedia is good too. She said its unsafe.
So in what way is youtube a good way to learn? Apart from videos like these, and cringy Indian science videos (no offense to them), am I supposed to learn how to hack club penguin?
Almost anything you want to learn you can find on both wikipedia and youtube. If you like to read, use wikipedia; if you like to watch, use RUclips; even better, use both.
@@roodborstkalf9664 I hate it when people literally read put Wikipedia pages line for line in youtube videos and then post it
Because credibility no longer applies
Welcome to the age of decadence
I love using wikipedia as a source of sources. Since the Wikipedia cites its sources, its a good place to find information without having to read entire scientific papers.
Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
That's why i dont trust it anymore when it comes to studying history or politics
That's incredible
I'm sorry
I put the definiton of liberty for a chathlic school class about theorithical faith and I think I am fine cause it is not the cutural definition but literal and my class is so stupid cause they just want to put their chathlic points ln but they put a ? On my source wtf
I remember I had to do a book report for a biography and it was about Teddy Roosevelt and I didn’t read the book just went on Wikipedia and went from there and ended up getting a B on it
What truly distinguishes infidels and intellectuals is whether or not they cite the article itself or cite the sources underneath.
3:53 „Most (articles) just have enough information to learn the basic idea of whatever you looked up.“
I hope you‘re not being serious. You can find that information in the first few lines. But especially the english Wikipedia is gigantic, with massive articles linked to one another.
meiklman
yep, like this one en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_London
Then there's the controversial issues where one side makes sure that the other side is never fairly represented.
You made this video essay for a class project didn’t you?
The Antivirus section tho
How much did you use Wikipedia to research for this video?
*actual results may vary*
I really like Wikipedia but searching with a browser for information can lead you to various Wiki sites. I have a problem with this, because Many people don’t know that they are not visiting the “original” site (especially mobile use). This is possible because of the easy accessibility of the downloadable content. These sites don’t always uphold the same standards as the original, like privacy. What’s your opinion and or idea about this?
Lol I love the windows xp noises
When litterally anyone who can type can be an editor of a page and decides what information can go on it, no.
The "editors" on too many pages have take this kind of ownership of the information and can deny new information , valid and provable, because they dont want it. They get possessive. If the information is supposed to be factual and not someone interpretation of facts, then yes.
But anyone who has encountered these basement dwelling nerdlings that being a "guardian" is their only joy in life can attest, Wikipedia is Reddit in long form.
Nothing more..
My rule is: as long as it doesn't say "THIS ARTICLE IS MISSING A SOURCE", it's okay.
Wikipedia has a lot of crazy rules.
As a Wikipedia admin, I can say it's absolutely NOT a credible source. At most, it should be used as a general starting point for further research but NEVER as a serious source of info, especially for academic work. Once you see how Wikipedia works in the background, especially for controversial topics, you can never trust it as a source. Check the sources Wikipedia cites, never Wikipedia itself. Here's the problem I see. Every good quality article tends to have a select few editors who write the vast majority of the content. Once those few editors stop editing, the quality inevitably goes down because there's no-one to maintain it. Unless an edit is blatant vandalism, people generally won't undo edits. This means that an article's quality slowly but surely goes down over time with someone adding unsourced info here, bad prose there, bias info here etc. All these small bad edits degrade an article. Death by a thousand cuts. Since ANYONE can edit, it's a PERPETUAL battle to uphold good content. There's no "final" point where you can say "OK this is done!" like you can with authoritative works.
All the bots literally reverse anything you try to add, so nothing really changes lol
Top Active pages by country. (by Wikipedia , 2007)
For US and FR.
*Politics, Religions* (Politicians, Nations, Conflicts)
*Athletes, Console Games*
For JP.
*Manga & Anime* {One Piece, BLEACH, Naruto, Death Note}
*Special effect films* (Something Rangers ?), *List of Porn Stars*
i am very proud of it. (^~^)
You should get more views
How to know the cosmos: wikipedia
Duck teachers!
Here is the thing. It's not that Wikipedia is not credible, but for a paper that you are most likely doing last minute, if by chance your point was hurt by some vandal, it'd affect you and in the end, it's just too general and has limits.
It's great for self study and understanding content. That said, you should also be careful about the sources too. It's not that the sources could be wrong, but they might not be credible or fitting the standards of your class.
TheDeathmail dude if its vandalised just use the edit history
Teachers nowadays will still tell you not to use Wikipedia, but even now in the age of misinformation, no teacher of mine has cared about checking for credibility.
Wikipedia still isn’t reliable for some reason however.
Its a website that basically spoils something
If everyone watching this video gave 5.00, this video would be done in an hour.
Wikipedia articles are as reliable as those that write them. "Real" encyclopedias have acknowledged authorities writing about a subject, e.g. a biologist writing an article on biology. Wikipedia has meticulously detailed articles on niche subjects by lifelong enthusiasts, but when it comes to academic stuff like the history of countries the results can be pretty uneven.
Hello, I'm going to ask a question: does it go against the rules if you mention a youtube channel by name?
And don't ask why I'm asking this.
I donated HKD$50 (7.8HKD = 1USD)
And you can stop donate to them if you hate it
I would going to send this to my teacher, but I'm not going to because of the plagiarism thing at the end (she, or almost any other teacher, wouldn't take that as a joke).
The worst part of Wikipedia is the ads that beg for money, in order to keep ads off the page that beg for money.
Jay H they're not that bad. Wikipedia only puts those up specific ads that "beg" for money once in a blue moon and you can simply say no. I've donated to Wikipedia multiple times because it's a free service I use frequently- I feel like they deserve some kind of gratitude from me. I suggest you do the same someday.
They're FAR less annoying than the ads that fill up most other websites. And the website is free for us all, but costs them millions of dollars to operate.
try running a high traffic website with no advertising or revenue streams for free. see how long it will last.
@TheBobBrom
Are you sure they're not biased? They portray a lot of propaganda as fact while often censoring the truth
Wikipedia is probably the most accurate encyclopedia ever. However, where a traditional encyclopedia was most likely to have errors for unimportant topics, wikipedia is most likely to have errors (often deliberate ones) for important or controversial topics. Essentially, Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia ever for things that don't matter. And one of the worst ever for everything that does.
The Wikipedia has really saved me time and time again when doing research for my video game reviews.
it's uncensored there for its not credible *wink wink*
insert J.O. crystal page
It seems like Wikipedia picks the most complicated and difficult way to explain things. If I want to learn something I'd rather just get a well written book. I can't understand Wikipedia most of the time.
I love Wikipedia, and the page that they did on me is 100% accurate. Mort Weiss
Is Wikipedia incredible? Of course! It's amazing