About Wikipedia and the accuracy of its entries...

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » June 12th, 2006, 8:59 pm

Folks,

You've gotta read the introductions on many websites.

Many educational websites are supported by volunteers and in Wikipedia's case every entry has been contributed BY a volunteer.

That means the information on the entry is as good as the research done by the volunteer.

I've found AT LEAST a half-dozen cases of factual errors in different entries on that site in addition to obvious political bias with regards to political biographies on the site.

It's kind of hard to do this when you're busy with work, but a good rule of thumb is to check facts with at least 5-6 six different sources.

I'm not so sure this gets done all the time at Wikipedia...

Post by **Josh** » June 12th, 2006, 9:40 pm

Thanks for your feedback, George.

I fully understand what you mean. That's the reason why every time something from Wikipedia is posted, it is stressed that the information has not been confirmed. Sometimes, the information is revealed to be false; sometimes, it is found to be true. If the rumor is not true, the studio is able to learn of that rumor and deny it.

We are dedicated to bringing you the latest animation news. If there is a rumor floating across the web that "John Doe" is doing "Movie A," you deserve to know that.

Once again, please keep in mind when it comes to reports from Wikipedia, the news is always stressed to be nothing more than a rumor.

Post by **Macaluso** » June 13th, 2006, 4:22 am

Wikipedia, though, while sometimes faulty, is pretty accurate as a whole.

And it's a helluva lot better than IMDB

Post by **Meg** » June 13th, 2006, 7:37 am

And it's a helluva lot better than IMDB

You've got a point there.