Sorry if this is reviving an old thread, but I just found this forum and really wanted to add something.

Wikipedia is a great place for general knowledge and finding links to other sources, as has already been mentioned. However, I think the main reason it is unacceptable as a reference is the fact that Wikipedia articles have not been peer reviewed. Imagine submitting a paper to Nature (for example) with a Wikipedia reference. That would not fly, and I like it when profs adhere to the same standards as the rest of the scientific community.

not all pages cite their references -- and that is what personally bothers me. I hate going to wikipedia because i'm afraid to trust it. i hate not knowing who wrote the information and what type of education they really have in that subject. so every time i need info on a subject, i google it instead. but the first result is usually a wikipedia article so i usually end up there anyways

i read a good quote about wikipedia somewhere (dont remember who said it either) but it went something like:

wikipedia is a great place to gather research on just about anything. just make sure that the entry has its own sources cited and then use those cited sources if you need to.

wikipedia is not really a good resource, some info from wiki may wrong . You should use it just as a idea or do a double check before you use it seriously.

All,

Wikipedia is for sure a good source of information. It seems objective, usually well documented, ...

Having said that, it is important to cross check sources of information in order to make sure they all go "the same direction" or simply to ensure information is accurate or complete.

This is true for wikipedia as for any other information provider (news, TV, rumour, books ...)
Regards,

Vincent

wiki has it's advantages and drawbacks. It's good for a quick look up, but never trust it entirely, even with or without citations. It's best to google and check if the data matches what's said in other sites.

Just a thought but every time I have looked up a subject I know something about it has been spot on. It's an excellent resource for getting general knowledge from, OK it's not good enough for taking a degree course from but then no encyclopaedia is, stop knocking it I say.

Mick

If I'm looking for a bio on someone, I'll generally look to Wikipedia first. Otherwise, Google is my friend.

yes it´s a good good resource, when I need a homework for my little sister it´s the first place a search.

I use it and generally find the information acceptable but I don't mind using multiple sources of info

did I understand correctly that that link on dihydrogen monoxide (water) is one big hoax and a load of rubbish ? it's no wonder that the at the bottom of the page it says no veracity is implied.....wtf ?

I think Wikipedia is an excellent ressource. The site is frequently updated and administered by well-educated people. You may at times find the odd thing that is complete rubbish, but that is usually reverted in a matter of hours and you can be sure that the people who mollested the site will have their IP banned for life. I consider Wikipedia the most reliable encyclopedia in existance.

Wikipedia is a good source for general information in my opinion. You shouldn't use it for study purposes, but it will give you a good idea of many subjects.

It is all written by volunteers so there is plenty of room for human error, but I think that in general it is a good resource.

It's great fun if you want to post a piece of general information on a subject on a forum, there is always a really pedantic member who just waits, salivating, to correct the mistakes. That makes me laugh sometimes.

So, good for info, but you won't pass your exams using it. It does often provide links to more in-depth information though.

dihydrogen monoxide is commonly written H2O...it's water. The site is intended to get people to think about the hype that commonly accompanies warnings.

yea ok i got it was water after all but what the hell is that site there for is it malicious or just trying to prove the point not to mention bring revenue through the adds on it

I have no affiliation with the site, so my answer is just a guess.

The site is probably there for two reasons: money flow from ad revenue, and to educate people on the dangers of listening to every inflammatory, urgent, FUD-like expression of information.

Which people do believe.... even supposedly informed environmental scientists who work for Greenpeace. There is an episode of a program by Penn and Teller on their series bullsh*it where they actually get people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, even THEY didn't know it was actually H20 !!

Here's the link if you are interested:-
YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition

yea but it would be nice if they said somewhere it was really a load of crap
yea that was a funny petition I remember reading in chemistry class about a number of elements we don't call by their real chemical names like water and alcohol and those real chemical names were quite astounding like water

well, that's the thing with humour: if you start with the punchline, the joke kinda loses its sting.

Like this note at the bottom of the front page:Or this page, created for teachers as a guide to using the site's content: Dihydrogen Monoxide - Research Reports