Do you have Wikipedia bookmarked?

My 10-year-old son LOVES Wikipedia.

There was some study a year or so ago that purported to show that Wikipedia was more accurate (at least on major subjects) than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica, of course, is far MORE accurate on fringe subjects such as the Cleveland Steamer.

 

I had no idea this was an option. You are fantastic.

Typically I just type in my desired subject and "wiki" into the google search.

This is great. I do love Firefox.

 

Holla.

 

Same thing is available as an option for Google Toolbar.

And the whole stream of conciousness thing Wikipedia allows is what is so addictive/frustrating. Which explains how I've spent the past hour reviewing the plots of Bugs Bunny cartoons, and at one point went off on a tangent that had me at "Faithless Electors" three clicks later.

 

No, no bookmark.
I use my Google toolbar frequently; thus typing in my keyword, 9 times out of 10, one of the top 4 entries is a link to the specific wikipedia page.

 

I've got to admit, I'm a little surprised that we haven't encountered a little more outrage over the use of Wikipedia as an informational tool. Not disappointed; just surprised.

 

Not bookmarked. If I google a topic the wiki will be one of the first topics. I guess bookmarking could save me some time, but I could probably find a more credible source by googling it.

 

Informational is fine. I look some stuff up and I'll click on the wiki entry if it comes up. I rarely ever start at wiki.

But it's only for personal info, never for anything work related.

 

Guess I took your thread topic quite literally - No, I don't have it bookmarked.
Do I believe it to be a one-stop-shop for source information, as a journalist or even a student working on a research paper? No.

This sums up my thoughts, exactly. And if I do happen to use it for work-related purposes, I ensure I also have multiple other avenues of information confirming wikipedia's information.

 

We're not allowed to use it, written policy. It's a big Internet, so many more legit sources, and you don't have to be a wizard to Google and find one. I think using it for anything other than entertainment is pretty dumb, but people do lots of dumb things and I have only so much outrage to spread around.

I used to post on a message board unrelated to journalism and got into an argument with somebody who insisted he read that Wikipedia was 90 percent as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I said, do you honestly believe the person who wrote that fact-checked the entire encyclopedia and the entire Wikipedia to arrive at that figure? And even if you accept that he did, doesn't Wikipedia change every day, so on some days wouldn't it be 85 percent as accurate or maybe 91 percent?

I've posted this link before:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

 

Nope.

 

OK, Frank ... as a natural extension of that, should we believe that Brittanica is 100 percent correct?

I know that's only half the fact-checking, but still ...