this post was submitted on
900 points (58% like it)
3,165 up votes 2,265 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,515,630 readers

9,015 users here now

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

899
900

Times I am told that wikipedia is unreliable (imgur.com)

submitted ago by p3t3r133

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 84 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Dr_Mic 95 points96 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ARGH!!!!!!!!! It is not that wikipedia is wrong (it is about as right as any encyclopedia) it is that it is not a primary source. Far too few people seem to understand that this is why Wikipedia should not be used for research papers.

I tell my students to use wikipedia article bibliographies as an entrance into primary sources.

[–]Cricks 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

90% of what you get in result, is not a primary source as well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm curious as to why that matters (using the source itself rather than the spot in the wiki where it was cited.)

Note: I've not been a student for many years.

[–]theenriquesuave 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In high school, the goal of writing a research paper is to learn how to find and interpret this information yourself, assess the quality of the information, and form conclusions based on that. When you read about a subject on the wiki, somebody has already taken care of this for you. It defeats the purpose of the assignment.

In college, if everything you know about your topic can be found on Wikipedia, you have barely scratched the goddamn surface. Anyone can look things up on Wikipedia. You're supposed to be becoming a specialist.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My high school teachers must have been pretty apathetic then. Their goal was for us to pass the tests so we would GTFO of their class and not bring down funding with low scores.

90% of my in class assignments (this was back in the 90's) were to answer 5 questions at the end of a mini-chapter in the text, the answers to which were verbatim in said chapter, and could easily be skimmed without reading/retaining anything.

I've learned a lot more from wikipedia than I ever did in public school, is all I know.

[–]theenriquesuave 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The quality of education I was describing takes a lot of resources, so things aren't always as they should be. Sorry to hear that your high school experience wasn't great, and I'm glad Wikipedia helped you.

[–]PSNDonutDude 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the purpose of the paper has been bypassed by technology, what is the point. Everything we have today is built on yesterday, why go back a week instead of a day? Wikipedia makes it easier and quicker just like any other person out of school would have access to...

[–]theenriquesuave 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because at some point, you may want to learn about a technical topic that hasn't been covered by Wikipedia. High schoolers are supposed to be cutting their teeth on the low-hanging fruit, to avoid overwhelming them with a difficult topic while they're still learning basic research skills. Unfortunately, Wikipedia happens to cover most of the low-hanging fruit for obvious reasons.

[–]PSNDonutDude -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes but that is where I must inform you. The students that deserve to succeed will do so with or without the use of wikipedia. I for example totally understand not being able to use it for a.primary source much like you cannot use the the bible for historical facts. I will use wikipedia to bypass the idiotic highschool and college papers, and realize that is all I am using it for. Morons that are forced by the teacher to not use wikipedia make it to college arguing wholeheartedly that wikipedia is a credible source. Which of course it is if used properly, using the sites citations.. Apologies if that made no sense btw, writing on tablet is difficult and too lazy to check over comment

[–]aboutApint 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So you are saying you don't need no fancy book learning until someone on wikipedia hasn't already learned it for you, then you'll jump in with both feet and do some research???

You don't want to be one of those morons thinking that wikipedia is a primary source, you just want to use the already written articles to breeze through your essasys???

Well I can't fault your logic there.

[–]PSNDonutDude 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I enjoy information absorbing as a hobby. I would be glad to write an article on my understanding of quantum physics. Fuck all when it comes to writing a paper on shakespeare... I will use wikipedia to breeze by the bullshit papers, and enjoy the useful ones. The difference is, I enjoy actually reading primary sources whereas most would be fine using nothing but wiki for everything.

[–]Looger 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One time in college I was required to write a history paper that cited at least 5 different sources from the library so basically I just wrote the paper and then searched the library website for books related to my topic and randomly cited them throughout the paper.

[–]theenriquesuave 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's a shame. Research skills can come in handy.

[–]Shesaidshewaslvl18 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not unless I want to become a researcher! What the hell do I need to know how to write a fleshed out paper for, when my chosen career field will never require such a thing? It is an antiquated teaching tool that needs to be abandoned in most classes.

[–]adotout 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Contrary to popular belief, you're actually supposed to be learning things in college, not just getting a degree. Congrats on not gaining that skill though.

[–]scots23 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair I've done the same thing. I was supposed to write a paper on the history of Java programming language, which I did 10 pages of without even cracking open a book. So maybe it was a similar circumstance? Perhaps not.

[–]Looger 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah I was a computer science major and I didn't really care that much about history at the time. Oddly enough I've become really fascinated with history now that I've graduated and such. In the immortal words of Mr. Einstein, "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

[–]zab329 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well said. I've never heard it said quite like this before.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Very true. I was allowed to use Wikepedia for school. However, I tended to go to the sources cited in the articles anyways, as I wanted a understanding of WHY the information portrayed to me was portrayed as it was. You can certainly learn to dissect information when you want to know the most you can.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not everything on Wikipedia is sourced, and it is possible for people to post random info without backing it up with anything. Not every article is able to be thoroughly reviewed by peers, so sometimes inaccurate info is posted on there.

Just going by the Wikipedia article without looking at the sources, especially for a research paper, is like writing something as fact because some random person said it on the internet.

[–]Vidyogamasta -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Going by the Wikipedia article without looking at the sources is like quoting what your teacher said as fact. They may be light/wrong on a couple of details, but a large majority of the time it will be accurate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see it that way. With a teacher at least I know they have gone to school for a subject, plus most teachers will back up what they say with a textbook.

With Wikipedia I have no idea who edits those articles, and if they don't use anything to back up what they say, then I don't see why I should believe it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because anybody can edit an article to claim the source says whatever they want. And there's a lot of bullshit on Wikipedia. If you go to the original sources, you can make a decision for yourself on what the source says and it's reliability.

For instance, I can say Bob's article details the rise of Nazi Germany through the use of chocolate chip cookies, when it says there is no such link.

And that's not even counting completely unsourced bullshit that people love to toss around as facts that some kid pulled out of his ass while bored one day.

[–]The_game_is_over 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, I save a lot of time researching by looking up the research already done and posted to wikipedia

[–]basicseacat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Awesome. Someone else who teaches the same things about wikipedia as I do. I used to have so many amazing arguments with colleagues who refused to believe that you could find good references by reading wikipedia articles.

[–]Goldd -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pisses me off when teachers complain how "anyone can put anything on wikipedia" if so why would there be multiple sources at the bottom. Old people are fucking retarded when it comes to the internet.

[–]iamlew 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone can put something up though. That's the fucking point of the website. Shit there are fake wars on it. Complete with footnotes.

[–]leiferic 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it would work better the other way around

[–]Pantstown 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My philosophy professors tell me to use wikipedia, even for quotes.

[–]knowpunintended 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's largely because philosophy professors tend to be more interested in your understanding of an argument and less in the understanding of a famous and/or respected philosopher. They know the professional is smart. It's you they have doubts about.

[–]Lithius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, somebody redo the graph, except blue is the times I want to put my foot up a prof's ass for telling me to find a book stating the same. exact. fact. ಠ_ಠ

Edit: I don't care what red is, my giveafuck is broken on day 1 this semester.

[–]evildwarf 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wikipedia is fine if you want quick, general information on something and reliability doesn't have to be 100%. I wanted a list of novels by Louis L'Amour (don't ask) and it was great for that. But like Dr_Mic says, it's not a place to go for academic level facts. You do have to be careful about anything that is emotive though (Israel, abortion, Obama) because of the constant fighting around it. To find out the birth date of Renoir though, great source.

[–]1wiseguy 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wikipedia is excellent for academic facts, as long as it is a fairly well-known subject that is free of political bias.

If you want to know the GDP of Norway or the data rate for a USB port, it's spot on, but if you want to know who is the rightful owner of Jerusalem, it can be squirrely.

[–]Okina 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, it's not. I don't know how things work in the US but obviously if you're doing a college level paper, the information on wikipedia isn't enough. The GDP of Norway isn't an academic fact, it's just a fact.

Now, if you're doing your research in anything related to scientist, odds are that wikipedia works great as a place to find some references and some quick data, but clearly insufficient as a source of useful information.

[–]1wiseguy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OK, so what do you think "academic" means?

I would think much of the information in Wikipedia about Norway would be useful in preparing an essay, for example.

The only problem with it is that it comes from Wikipedia, which means it was really easy to find. To command any respect, you would have to find the same information from another source.

[–]Deluxx00 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's actually awesome to get an idea and then scroll down for the real sources and reading/using those - almost like a search engine

[–]Martin_The_Warrior 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ok, here's an idea. Why not give an example?

[–]slugtrooper 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

my ex told me that wikipedia is filled with lies and should not be trusted, but at the same time, believed that ghosts were 100% real and used youtube videos as proof of their existence.

[–]WhitePostIt 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's why you don't use Wikipedia as your resource. You use Wikipedia as your resource for resources.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are much better ways of finding good sources. Most of the ones on Wikipedia I've found to be difficult-to-access books, unreliable personal websites or sites that only give one specific fact about the topic and don't help at all otherwise. Your public library (or school or university library) should have online databases to search journal articles and ebooks.

[–]FrownSyndrome 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

  1. From anyone who's read about slimvirgin.

[–]ajkkjjk52 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In all of my time using Wikipedia, I have ONCE found an error in my field (biochemistry). And you know what I did? I fixed it.

[–]omplatt 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

collective knowledge is statistically more accurate, not that that makes wikipedia infallible.

[–]C_M_O_TDibbler -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

erm collective knowledge says people who are still alive are dead and people who were born in the 1970's lived through WW2.....ಠ_ಠ user editable content on the internet...too many trolls spoil the broth

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As opposed to what, buying a new set of books every time something in them gets updated/is found to have been wrong?

Wiki ain't perfect but it's at least adaptive. And its police force is way more diligent than people give them credit for.

[–]bishop252 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Textbooks are also considered a tertiary source like Wikipedia. When people talk about sources in acdemia, they're talking about papers and such.

[–]asherrd 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And even with all of those problems it has still been shown to be at least as accurate as an encyclopedia.

[–]lemons4sale 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

source?

[–]omplatt -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

statistics can be misleading

[–]RandomMandarin 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Study: Wikipedia is About as Reliable as Britannica. This was done about 6 years ago and found an average of "2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia." In both Wikipedia and Britannica, there were four serious errors found in a sampling of 42 head-to-head article comparisons, 162 minor mistakes in Wikipedia articles as opposed to 123 from the Britannica.

And, as Dr_Mic and others point out, an encyclopedia article on a subject is like the front porch of a house. You'll have to go in and look around if you want to know what's really in there.

[–]EricWB 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Teachers in high school don't seem to understand that wikipedia is more reliable then a vast majority of websites we are allowed to use. Next time a teacher tells me no wikipedia, I'm using 4chan.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This. It's stupid to focus constantly on Wikipedia but rarely mention how to figure out if other sites are reliable - even if they talk about UFOs, are written in 18 point comic sans and have a flashing background. And no, .org sites are not automatically reliable.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is not what I said at all. I'm talking about how the teacher in high school always talked about how Wikipedia was not reliable, but rarely mentioned how to know which other sites are actually reliable (and allowing students to use practically any website besides wikipedia as a source) The only thing they said is that .org sites are usually reliable, which is bs. I know how to find reliable sources, but a lot of people didn't, and the teachers didn't care much as long as they weren't using wikipedia.

[–]NonaSuomi 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Somebody needs to register www.myteachersaidicantusewikipedia.org and just mirror wikipedia itself somehow while changing the formatting and hiding any kind of editorial ability. It's a .org and it's not wikipedia, so it must be reliable!

[–]PHProx 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those percentages are exactly backwards.

[–]Hazlzz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

for me it's 85% my father while looking it up in an actual 18 volume dictionary that became outdated a decade ago.

[–]newstome 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How does a dictionary become outdated?

[–]Hazlzz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hahaha. Encyclopedia was the word I was trying to say. I'd correct it, but I think you're the only one who saw my comment.

[–]earlingz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would change friend to, "someone I argued with over the internet".

[–]loveisfornerds 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This chart isn't even funny...

[–]Beretot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Times I am told that wikipedia is unreliable[Citation .needed]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I always give them the wikipedia challenge to shut them up

What's the wikipedia challenge? modify any article and see how long it takes to get corrected

[–]MrClocky 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just use the sources that wikipedia cites, but check they are credible themselves before you do so.

[–]caxaar 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

protip #238 wikipedia is fine, the sources your teacher wants are the sited sources at the bottom :)

[–]JeremyKean 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know one guy who, when told something he's never heard of, or doesn't believe, he asks you the source then says things like "Oh well they've been wrong in the past." or "Well... I mean, come on... Not EVERYTHING on the internet is reliable.". I want to punch him so hard, it just halts the conversation entirely. I'm waiting for the day to come where he's just like "Well, we don't really KNOW anything. For all we know this is an illusion.".

Though last time I stopped and was like "Oh wait. You won't believe me. I read that on the internet." he was like "Fuck off! I don't say that!"

He says that.

I hate that shit so hard.

[–]kentoss 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with this.

[–]Dolemiiiiiiite 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Came to make sure [citation needed] was a top comment, got insightful debate... you disappoint me reddit

[–]otakuman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You forgot "from the defaced wikipedia entries".

[–]Paultimate79 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dumb people: Cite wikipedia as a source

Smart people: Cite wikipedias sources as a source.

[–]mapkinase 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In 1996 I won an argument with a friend who said that Luc Besson is the guy who played Leon in Leon.

When I pointed him to imdb (that was the first time he heard about it), he said that it's just a website.

[–]Shesaidshewaslvl18 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Or you know, just use google.

[–]internetsanta 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While this is just two posts away...

[–]makeitstopmakeitstop 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here is the real page.

[–]tommy2712 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i don't find this pie chart to be 100% accurate.

Wikipedia was used as a source for the content of this comment.

[–]TheKZA 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just a friendly tip; it's better to put the funny option last. Otherwise it kind've blows the punch line.

[–]blitzbom 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This made me lol, in no small part due to Alec. A Russian exchange student who we convinced that Ice Road Truckers had a season in Australia by doing a quick edit of wikipedia. He stopped arguing after 30 minutes and apologized profusely.

It was some of the best trolling ever.

We also got wikipedia blocked at school due to our editing pages with false information on a daily basis.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And yet, TIL is simply filled with unsourced, made up bullshit.

[–]SuperCow1127 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Every single thing on Wikipedia is hearsay. You aren't even allowed to post something that isn't.

If you want to use something as an example, reference directly to the guy that did the original research and made the point in the first place. Don't link to an encyclopedia that links to a magazine article that links to an interview that mentions a scientific research paper. Link to the damn paper.

[–]NonaSuomi -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most often, that damn paper is written in acedemicalese and is all but inaccessible to the average person. Wikipedia is no more hearsay than Britannica, or for those who grew up on computers in the 90's, Encarta. And unlike both of those, Wikipedia can constantly adapt on a constant, continuous basis, while the other two can, at best, release corrections once per year, and most people who own one copy won't bother trading in their old version of EB for the new one just because of a few changes here and there, leaving them with incomplete or incorrect articles scattered throughout.

[–]SuperCow1127 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

First, your comparison of Wikipedia to other encyclopedias is completely irrelevant. Neither is a primary source.

Second, if you can't read the "academicalese" you have no business writing on that topic. The whole damn point of college is to learn how to read papers written in your field.

[–]JimmerUK -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was up visiting my dad at Christmas, and my ten year old sister said she didn't like Wikipedia "because it could be written by anyone"

I tried to explain to her how it works, but she wasn't having any of it. She refuses to use it at all.

[–]TheLiberalSoup -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Or when I prove a teacher wrong

[–]heracleides -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair a teacher is a baby-sitter and only wants as little to do with you as possible so they don't have the highest standards as long as you don't plagiarize.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 1504 on app-171 running 36b3b59.