I found a lot of information in this website, and it's free which is a
plus.
However, anybody can get in and write about different topics, but who
guarantees that the information posted is right. Or if the people who
review it is capable to do so.
In one single question is the information in wikipedia correct?

sorry, miguel...wikipedia isn't really considered a valid resource, for
the reasons you just mentioned. it's user-defined, and can be edited by
anyone.

however, it IS a good starting point for information...and often
contains valid links to more material, academic and otherwise.

It may, or may not. it depends, but is not allowed as a reference in
Scholarly Research papers.
I wouldnt rely on it, because ppl do edit it, especially since Robert
Colbar and Howard Stern have been suggesting viewers to change things
just for a gag.
Wikipedia does have ppl who periodically correct things, but you can
never be sure at any time that what you read is accurate.

Don't trust wiki. Or myspace. In fact, in general, don't trust anything
you find online. Anyone can make up anything.

I agree with everyone about taking it with a large grain of salt, but I
love wikipedia. It may not a reliable resource, but you can look at the
edit history to get an idea as to whether (or how much) people have been
vandalizing that particular article, and you can read the
discussions/rationales behind edits that have been made. This has some
advantages over using academically reliable sources, where it may be
harder to explore for yourself the validity of the claims being made.

There is so much trash out there in the world, even in -professionally
produced, well written, cited, bound and printed media-, in which a
person represents their opinions/speculations as established facts.
Even a respected science journal has unknowingly published complete
trash submitted by a prankster.

I disagree generally with the views that have been expressed here re.
Wikipedia. Several reasons:

1. The editing function is pretty effective, and the level of dedication
to accurate descriptions by those who contribute is quite high.

2. In direct comparison with the Encyclopedia Britannica (so so many
decades the Gold Standard of encyclopedias), the general level of
accuracy of Wikipedia equals that of the Britannica. This is in part
because the Britannica depends on single article writers.

3. Wikipedia explicitly stays away from new scientific discoveries,
precisely because the peer review function for them is still too raw.

4. The volume of articles in Wikipedia is unsurpassed: it is in the many
millions, compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is in the
hundreds of thousands.

5. No encyclopedia should be used for original research, or treated as a
primary source; this is not just true of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia, as
someone said, is an excellent source for general orientation to a topic,
a good starting place when one is learning about a topic for the first
time. This limitation is also true of the Britannica.

6. My son has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, and is recognized by the
Wikipedia community of writers as an expert in several fields. He is
impressed with the serious caliber of discussion among the writers as
they seek out the fairest and most effective ways of building the
Wikipedia library. He also has published several images there, and they
are subject to the same rigorous critical scrutiny.

7. It is true that some bizarre things have been slipped into Wikipedia,
including, for example, some false biographical information on various
politicians. The less attention an article receives (like a politicians
biogrpahy!) the easier it is to put misinformation into Wikipedia; but
in my experience in those areas where lots of writers pitch in together,
the articles are generally of a high and reliable nature. In all, I see
Wikipedia as a world-class information resource, and -- even better --
it is being contunously improved and updated. No other encyclopedia,
including sadly the Britannica, even comes close.

I hope these personal observations help....

Cheers,
Oceans

Agree with Massage Trade -- just saw your posting after I finished
writing mine. Sorry.

Oceans

Thanks Ocean! I see we were writing at the same time, and thinking
similar things...

Yup, I'm just more long-winded!


Oceans

Wikipedia is "open source" in the truest sense of the word. The content
is totally open to anyone to edit (as was pointed out). I've updated
articles (PT Boats), and got good feedback. I'm often impressed with how
timely and how detailed articles can be. Far more detailed and linked
than say a stale encyclopedia set.

Further, I would say that the traditional encyclopedia sets are FAR MORE
subject to censorship, spin, and white-washing. I would say that the
wikipedia materials represent a good averaging of the range of thoughts
on a topic. And for those topics that are the subject of
political/social concern aren't worth the time to read wether they be on
the web or in print - because they're highly charged anyway.

Wikipedia also had the distintion of being the first accessible
"authoritative sources" of the new Pope - articles were published within
minutes of his papacy.