Your thoughts on the value of Wikipedia.

[haikuman]

Yes I would and cross reference as needed no problem ~!~ *(:>*

[Black]

haikuman wrote:
"""Most everything else is unreliable, including Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia is generally accurate. People do intentionally screw around with Wikipedia."""

What is an oxymoron Alex . . . ? :devil: :priate: :jest:

Thanks, I never knew freeradical's real name.

[cbelt3]

I'm planning on donating in a few weeks. I agree it has significant value.

And I'll note that the entries that are properly referenced provide links to more academically acceptable sources such as scientific articles and so forth. Many of which are still inaccessible unless one has a Lexis/Nexis account.

[blooz]

I ignored those messages for a while until i realized i was going there several times a week. so i sent them some money.

And, yeah, if it's important, I try to cross-check.

[Will Collier]

Hate to dis a fellow Auburn grad (Jimmy Wales), but a good general rule is, the more controversial and/or obscure a topic or person is, the less reliable the pertinent Wikipedia article is.

[sekker]

Wikipedia is fantastic - but just a start.

It's no different than ANY encyclopedia - it should just be a start towards gathering the primary literature.

Thanks for the links, I'll be donating!

[The UnDoug]

I will probably donate soon, too.

I like having it available.

[Acer]

I use it frequently. But as an internet publisher, I have to say there are a few niches where I wish it didn't stay pegged to the top of every search result every time. :whine:

[pipiens]

I have donated and will continue to do so.

The real need is for more editors. They seem to be shrinking in number. The members of this forum have an incredible collective knowledge base. We can improve Wikipedia if we are willing to each donate a bit of our time in addition to our dollars.

[Paul F.]

The single most important thing that makes Wikipedia both GOOD and BAD is the ability of people to edit any article.
This is BAD because it DOES allow people to "screw with" articles... but it's GOOD because it equally allows people knowledgeable about a subject to FIX the screwed up article and add material.

I have used Wikipedia extensively as a BEGINNING for research on some ancestors of royal descent... because well written articles on (for example) Henry II of England cite sources I can then look up using Google Books, the local library, or other reliable sources.

I don't take ANYTHING on Wikipedia at face value until I can verify it against other sources.

It's incumbent upon users of Wikipedia to add truth and fact to articles when they see lies and misstatements.
If you see something you know to be wrong, fix it, and add a citation that can be looked up to back it up.

I donated some to Wikipedia last year, and have promised myself that if the genealogy book I've published every actually SELLS copies, I'll donate more.

This is a bad time of year for me to be donating anything to anyone... (doesn't mean I'm not donating ANYTHING.... but not a lot available right now...)