2011 yearbook says that Wikipedia can be unreliable at times

[Buddy]

'Wikipedia online encyclopedia warns that some articles on its own site contains significant misinformation adding that users need to be aware of this.'

[Nobody]

Year Book??

[Buddy]

That's right you got it Randy, yearbook.

Edited December 8, 2013 by a3a27988

[Nobody]

your book year book potatoe potato

[bohemian]

Wikipedia has been referred to as the "toilet wall of the internet". Do not take it as always true.

[Nobody]

Wikipedia has been referred to as the "toilet wall of the internet". Do not take it as always true.

 

Not always reliable, BUT there are times when it can be useful. I have used it for discussions such as John1:1, the cross etc. It's not always clear cut but it does help others to see that it is not always just a "JW" thought/teaching.

[DLM]

Yah, I understand that Wikipedia is not totally reliable but what is besides the Bible? When I look up something and I see what they say about it, then I research to see where they got their information. Some of it is quite interesting and I find out many things that I had no idea about. I never take any idea or writing at face value. We have to do what Jehovah says and prove to ourselves whether it is true or not.  (My rant!)

[Brother_Bliss]

Moved topic from "In the News & Current Events" to "General Chit Chat & Hangout Lounge" because the topic is not based on current news journalism, but is rather general discussion.

[Nobody]

Some times not so useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChitChat

[Mei]

While taking classes at a university, professors specifically instructed ALL students never to use Wikipedia as a "reliable" source.  While it does contain "some" accurate information, it is not reliable by any means.  

 

Edited: Some professors specifically stated that any research papers citing Wikipedia as a source would end up receiving an automatic F for that paper. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by Mei

[ReadYourBible]

While taking classes at a university, professors specifically instructed ALL students never to use Wikipedia as a "reliable" source.  While it does contain "some" accurate information, it is not reliable by any means.  

 

Edited: Some professors specifically stated that any research papers citing Wikipedia as a source would end up receiving an automatic F for that paper. 

Agreed, we were told the same thing by our prof.  It's not a reliable resource, however if could contain reliable resources at the bottom.  If you go and check the references on wikipedia, they usually (not always though) give the credible reference.

[Sheep]

Have you ever seen a note from the Wikipedia moderators above an article sometimes? It will say something like: "This article is not up to Wikipedia standards and needs work." I see that once in a while and wonder what it means. Maybe it's because the article is far too accurate and needs to have a few dubious comments inserted.

[Allabord4Jah]

I do know on the side bar, they are always asking for MONEY. 

[Mei]

Have you ever seen a note from the Wikipedia moderators above an article sometimes? It will say something like: "This article is not up to Wikipedia standards and needs work." I see that once in a while and wonder what it means. Maybe it's because the article is far too accurate and needs to have a few dubious comments inserted.

 

Here is Wikipdedia "About Wikipedia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About It states:

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.  The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are the five pillars. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia; however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.”

If "anyone with Internet access . . . with formal requirement to be familiar. . . can write," how accurate can it be? The five pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars are supposed to guide one to state facts. . . hmm.... but so are the Five Pillars of Islam.

Wikipedia also includes numerous statements by specific titles about Jehovah’s Witnesses such as,

-  “Jehovah’s Witnesses Beliefs”;

-  “Criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

-  “The written statements by Wikipedia about Jehovah's Witnesses' criticisms”; and

- “Wikipedia talk; WikPoject Jehovah’s Witnesses/Archive 4, and so on. . . and so on. . . and so on.

 

While much contains accuracy, there are also many statements such as, “The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, failed predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coercive leadership,” which make for much propaganda against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and contains more opinions than accuracies.

Edited: included only formating changes for easier reading

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mei