Wikipedia Is Accurate, But Not Very Easy To Read, Study Finds

On the matter of politicians THEY ARE MOSTLY ON THE MONEY!

I have found Wikepedia to be a tremendous first step in any research project. In addition to more than basic information, if suggests avenues for further topics to explore. I refer to Wikepedia several times a week, and have never found any inaccuarcies.

I use Wikipedia all the time for things like movies and learing what the actors have been doing lately, etc; but I would never use if I was writing a paper for my doctoreate. It serves a convenient purpose, and I like the "edit" option which allows the reader to correct certain inaccuracies; but Wikipedia itself will always double check any new information for accuracy. As far as reading it, it's no different from any other encyclopedia. Let's face it; what is more difficult to read than Encyclopedae Britannica?

"It should be noted, of course, that this study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was extremely limited in scope."

And because of it's extremely limited scope it shouldn't be used as a news article, or even be presented as something of interest.

It's all right for non-controversial topics and factual information, for example, if you wanted information about the star Antares, or when Charlotte Bronte wrote Jane Eyre. I certainly wouldn't trust it for any highly charged topics like a bio of President Obama, or anything where the whackos basically want to rant on their latest whacko conspiracy theory.

We should not forget that the acquisition of reliable information still requires some degree of effort. Wikipedia (as far as research is concerned) is -in my opinion- the best thing available to the researching public. It is not perfect, but it will, at least, get you started and, in most cases, put you on the right track. Unless you want Wikipedia to do your research for you, I would say it is doing what it was created to do; and doing it very well.

AND READING THE CELEBRITY DRIVEN GUNK THAT IS SPEWED OVER AOL IS ANY BETTER?....I'D RATHER READ ABOUT THE HISTORY OF TOILETS ON WIKPEDIA THAN YET ANOTHER AOL CRAPOLA BLURB ON THE KELLY RIPA'S OF THIS WORLD!

I would like to see an "unbiased" study of Wiki content on politically charged issues (if that is not an oxymoron) which, these days would include bios on our founding fathers and documents. The huge problem with Wiki is not the accidental, ignorent, or mis-informed edit but the intentional skewing of the facts to suit an agenda, something that can sometimes be done by simply changing a single word.

who would rely on one source for information?

I for one trust Wikipedia only for some good first links to real data and actual research. This is a "Cliff Notes" version of info written by people who may or may not be correct. For a particular book I've been writing which requires hard data I've found the amount of incorrect statements on Wiki to be appalling. I've even signed up to be able to correct them...have tried to correct them too...only to see my work re-"corrected" back to the original incorrect info. Use it at your own risk

Media is controlled by the elite so they are scared of wikpedia.

I think people, including teachers, that dissuede from Wikepedia are just ignorant to the information source. I used to be one of these people that had little faith in Wikepedia until I used it to "prove why Wikepedia isn't accurate." I had made my own eroneous entry in Wikepedia to make my statement and within ten minutes it had been properly edited by Wikepedia. Now I am a believer and a friend to Wikepedia.

I sometimes use Wikipedia as a beginning source when researching a topic. It is fairly concise and give useful references to pursue if needed. I recommend it but never reference it in my work. I always go on an confirm anything i get from Wikipedia because of the possibility of Wikipedia information being corrupted by idiots.

Not easy to read??How stupid can people be??What they need pic's??

I never had any trouble reading Wikipedia. I don't believe most of it as "gospel," but it's fun to look at. Sometimes, I just like to look up stuff for the hell of it. Yeah, I know, I'm weird. I like to read the dictionary too.