I'm going with the second one cause I've never seen anything on there that's false. But that's just what I think.

Same with me here. :nod:

Wikipedia is actually very good for getting good scientific/historical information, though it often lacks the balance and detail that you might find elsewhere, but it is always good practice to check facts elsewhere, and never ever use wikipedia as a reference in an essay!

When it comes to more "popular" and subjective things like video games and the like, wikipedia is less useful (the state of the ZT2 wikipedia article shocks me). Any old kid, hyped up about their favouritest game, will edit it without thought and without citing the source of their information and including the most un-noteworthy things.

Since anyone can add anything, some people add false info or info they believe but is false.

I don't trust it because when I compare a book with wikipedia, wikipedia is most of the time wrong. It was a very bad idea to have placed and edit button so people can edit it and put whatever they want.

I think it depends whether you are easily manipulated by everything read on the web lol, if not, then I'm pretty sure you could sometimes figure that certain parts of it just easily look like someone added fake news. I usually look if the information in the article is referenced and if it is, I check if that reference seams dependable, but I'm also not saying that if it's not referenced, it isn't true, it just helps sometimes when you want something confirmed when you don't believe it. I don't usually use wikipedia if I have to write a report on something though, usually it's all books (it's for a grade, I can't risk failing high school XD), unless the teacher requires me to search on it from a website.

True, true, all so very true... but wiki sometimes has date errors on it, thats what I don't trust the most.

You should never get your information from one source anyway. Cross checking information is an important part of academic practice.

How do you know it's not false though? Because it could say, The Internet was invented by cavemen, whlie it was really invented by Al Gore, as he claim's. Do you see what i'm saying? Because anyone can edit WikiPedia. :) Sorry, if it sounded nean or offended you. :blush:

I trust wikipedia for the majority of the animal info I get. It's easy enough to tell if something is wrong anyway, at least for me.
But you do have to be careful, as Shen and catc said

I chose the second one. Wiki has helped me a lot during school projects and stuff.

I voted for maybe

I don't, because some people make up articles of fake things!

And that's why you should edit it to be right.

only if proven or likely

I'd say I find it reasonably trust worthy, but since it can be edited by anyone I don't think it should EVER be your only source of information on a subject... and you don't want to use it for any sort of really important research. It also depends on what the topic is, some things the info in quite accurate and others it's just a bunch of nonsense (think of the ZT2 article, lol). Personally, I'm just careful to use my best judgement when I read something on there. But it really can be a great source of info if you're mindful of this.

I only trust animal subjects.You can tell if it's fake easily in that stuff.

yeah some things are obvoiusly fake.
like the time tigress_10 found an article about rihanna and about how her forehead eclipsed out the sun. O_o...

like what Great white said, i only trust animal subjects ;)

I voted if proven or likely. If in the links at the bottom of the page there is another page that can vouch for it, then yes. But if not...no. Also it depends on the subject. But largely, yes, kinda depends on the subject.

I said yes, always, never found anything that seemed wrong on Wikipedia before.

Wikipedia is a fairly good source for info. Vandalism is always present (like the ever popular "Jane Goodall was hit by a bus/mauled by a chimp/murdered by a gorrila", etc) but hey, thats just the price we'll have to pay for free info.

i dont trust wiki because in the third grade i did a report on vitamins in our body for science and since some of the stuff was false (ha i didnt noe i was only like 8 years old) so i got an F on the report and i got in trouble lol

I trust it because most vandalism is outrageously false, and its pretty easy to tell most of the time.

I trust Wikipedia. Some articles are really good, and sometimes our teachers gives us articles from it. And I think you can see if a article was made by a person without "education".

I rarley do.