Because if companies like Google is using it to gift credit to publishers, then it does seem reliable. Right. What are your take on Wikipedia and its reliability
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 1:49
I can't say that, but I could just say for myself, I don't usually go to it that often now when I'm Googling something. But anyway, yeah, those are just my thoughts
Zainul Cain
@Cain · 1:17
So can I assume that most of the information on Wikipedia is pretty much true, like there is no fact checking done in Wikipedia itself. But then again, who would even update Wikipedia if not for those who already have knowledge on the topic, there are small percent of trolls that might go on to the platform to do things, but I think that is a very small percentage
phil spade
@Phil · 2:40
And I look on the Wikipedia page to see if they had made another Final Four, and they already had them in the Final Four, even though there were twelve minutes to go before the game ended on the Wikipedia page had already said that they were in the Final Four. So that right. There another kind of example of I don't know who's controlling this here, but they don't have this exactly right
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 2:17
It'll talk a little bit about Apple and how they kind of were behind the commercialization of podcasting and all that sort of stuff. But if you want to get more in tune with the details, they actually have source links sometimes within that said Wikipedia page itself. So you can go look and find stuff elsewhere. So I would say that it really is still a matter of you doing the due diligence to find other sources of information regardless, especially if it's something that you're really into
Lavanya Neti
@lavanyaneti · 0:55
This is such an interesting question in terms of Wikipedia. We've always been taught in school to never trust it not to use it as a sighting, don't even use it as valid information. However, I know from personal experience I've been talking to friends and family that most people do use Wikipedia. In fact, my family actually donates monthly to Wikipedia and subscribes to it because we feel like it has benefited us in terms of giving us educational information
Aron Miles
@CallMeMiles · 0:16
You generally shouldn't use anything as one source, but when it goes for Wikipedia, most of the things that I've seen on there are actually sourced at the bottom, so it's reliable as the sources that are actually denoted is at the bottom of the page
Yeah. I think this point here is probably the biggest one is that there's usually sources at the bottom of a Wikipedia page. And I see Wikipedia pages. It's kind of like launching point if that makes sense. And if you're looking into a topic, you start there and you Cain use those source links at the bottom of the page to get you onto the next piece of research. And just kind of helps you broaden your Horizons. I guess you could say
And when I got into University, I edited the page for the University to say that Dumbledore and Oprah Winfrey had been married and opened the University together, and it was up there for at least three or four days. But now I don't think that that's really the case. And as many people here have already mentioned, they're pretty good about providing sources, and I rarely come across broken links