Do you feel Wikipedia is a trusted source to gather information about cricket? - wikipedia - emily18
Reading the profile information about cricket and cricket in general, how reliable do you think of Wikipedia? This article on the BBC web site shows how Wikipedia can not always be trusted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7 ...
Have you noticed a strange gap in reading about cricket in Wikipedia? You always have full confidence in their positions?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wikipedia - Emily18 Do You Feel Wikipedia Is A Trusted Source To Gather Information About Cricket?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The first response said, Wikipedia really should not be used for all primary information. The second source can be a little better, especially if you can find more than a backup.
But in general simply can not be trusted because it is so unreliable. Here's why:
* Anyone can edit, including people who have no knowledge about the topic.
* Is often worked by cranks and people who are strong on the topic, place, person or biased whatever.
* The sources themselves are often unreliable, updates or suspicious.
* They often also make sure the facts that they are correct.
Now, can a reliable source of information about Cricket? Well, yes, and (especially) not. Also here's why:
Yes:
* There is a group called Wikipedia: Proposed cricket and try to get the messages of cricket as specific as possible. It has members who know very well what they are talking. Here, if you are interested in:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:W ...
* Most of the information and statistics from the most reliable.
* Sources are pretty good.
* Items that are not supported by information from appropriate sources of information, organizations and websites reliable cricket.
No:
* For reasons which first were established on the Wikipedia as a whole.
* Wikipedia: Proposed cricket idiots like you know all about bad taste of cricket. Some people think because you're a fan of a player that has them a free hand, what the hell they want to write their favorite players up to. Some of them are very limited (and it is often difficult to try and you decide that you trust the user).
* Since we often find a page that is badly written and in its entirety.
* Statistics are updated slowly sometimes, so you must Cricinfo (or someone) you come up to date.
* Sometimes statistics are wrong and you have to examine or ensure Cricinfo Statsguru at that Wikipedia is correct. Above all, Ok WRong Wikipedia Statistics usually only a small amount, but for someone who loves statistics are alarming.
* To quote the Wikipedia article is subject to acts of senseless vandalism. Take a look at the pages of cricket in Australia (for example) for a week and see what happens. Before Matthew Hayden went on his probably the number one goal is now probably the best of Ricky Ponting.
How can the negative aspects far outweigh the positive and see the material found in Wikipedia, is still very subjective and should not really be taken as a reliable source for all without regard to the cricket.
I'm sure he discrepant. If I need statistics for a player, I use Cricinfo to be safe. For all the players know about the events of real life, I think Wikipedia is a decent source. After all, this is my reply to your message the other day at the grave of the 19th Cricket century (I forgot his name). The example he gives is clearly an act of vandalism. As with everything you need to about what they read to think, and if it just for you.
Wikipedia can be used as a reference point for information collection. The problem is that every article published on the Internet can write, regardless of experience level. It is therefore used, never as a reliable source of 100% of the information.
To a question as cricket is probably fine though.
I was informed by a number of wiki is not always correct, as many said that any user can edit
Many facts have to be sometimes called a test are given.Those people seem to be able to "Change".
As with cricket, and his condition, at least not for certain controversial
I think Wikipedia is a trusted site, love it, use it, and it must be accepted term in the documents of the university as a reliable source.
Wikipedia is useful, but he can not be trusted, because everyone can publish it. There are many so-called "facts'that is not it simple: When it important for you to get accurate information, you may want to look away!
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and this fact makes it an unreliable source. When you review information about wikis, dates.
In general, however, as the discussion on controversial issues or which may be altered by biased people. Overall I would say that pretty reliable
I have to take, as I found, but I have heard several opinions on the matter quite trust him.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information on everything
BA response to 1
BA response to 1
BA response to 1
Post a Comment