Wikipedia validity/reliability

[Scientific_potato]

Is Wikipedia reliable? i keep hearing that since everyone can edit it, its not a good place to get information.
You see, if anyone can edit a page/article at any time then if anything changes then it can be fixed. While a normal britannica article for example cant be changed (at least not easily) after it has been made. And yes, i am aware that companies can edit wikipedia too- but so what? You can always edit it back.
I really dont see companies changing an article about abraham lincoln or anything like that. what are your thoughts, am i forgetting something?

[sethoflagos]

The articles themselves can often be problematic, but publications given in the references at the bottom of the page can be more helpful.

[CharonY]

As a general, not too in-depth overview most are fine, especially on non-controversial subjects. I am not sure why a company would have an interested in editing a post on Lincoln. They are more likely to something related to their business interests.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The articles themselves can often be problematic, but publications given in the references at the bottom of the page can be more helpful.

While this might be generally the case, I found that references were often a wild mix of decent, wildly outdated or simply incorrectly cited sources (most frequently just a snippet that is not really a key point of the paper). I think that is expected as many folks editing are not necessarily experts on the subject matter, especially for more obscure topics (and the same could be said for traditional encyclopedias).

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Scientific_potato said:

Is Wikipedia reliable? i keep hearing that since everyone can edit it, its not a good place to get information.
You see, if anyone can edit a page/article at any time then if anything changes then it can be fixed. While a normal britannica article for example cant be changed (at least not easily) after it has been made. And yes, i am aware that companies can edit wikipedia too- but so what? You can always edit it back.
I really dont see companies changing an article about abraham lincoln or anything like that. what are your thoughts, am i forgetting something?

I think Wiki is in general a good quick  or introductory source for a lot of things. However you do need to apply your critical faculties, especially when what you reading seems poorly worded, unclear or contradictory, and you need to cross-reference before relying on it. Also , on any topic that is known to be contentious, you need to be aware of potential for bias. The references are a valuable source of ideas for further reading.

[Mordred]

As mentioned its useful for quick references. However one has to be careful on reliability. More often than not you would find good textbooks, dissertation  papers and peer review material far more reliable.

This is particularly true with subjects that are often seen in our Speculation forum such as ether based theories as one example.

I've often seen wiki pages edited to support a particular view point. Thankfully those pages typically don't last long before they get changed again.

[cladking]

They do a superb job of providing an overview of almost everything.  But they do a poor job of being consistently factually correct and differentiating fact and opinion.  

I think of wiki as the ideal place to go for experts who don't know much about a subject outside their own field.  

[Peterkin]

I don't use wiki as a reference very often. I use it as starting point for research. The relevant names, dates, events and places are there, and some connections I might not otherwise have made, and usually pretty accurate numbers. From there, I can decide how to follow up those leads on more authoritative sites.

[StringJunky]

The subjects I peruse tend to not be contentious, so Wiki is reliable enough for me as a starting point. The references will indicate the level of research.