>>16527550
as reliable as a any encyclopaedia.

>>16527550
Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Some know what they're talking about, some don't and some are deliberately misleading. The editors try to control quality but can't be expert enough in everything.

It's a convenient place to start, and to get simple facts, like someone's dates. And its references might send you to other good sources.

But double check anything you find there. And don't ever use it as a source in a school paper or assignment.

I only used wiki during my schooling. I wasn't stupid enough to list it as a source, what I would do is is list all the references for the article as a source.

The notes on my papers form the teacher.
>That is an impressive list of sources you found.

>>16527579
I've already heard that.
I'll reformulate my question : Is it wise to pay for an encyclopaedia 80€ for two year when Wikipedia exists ?

>>16527591
Can you afford it?

>>16527596
Of course.
I assume the answer is yes then.

>>16527600
If you're going to use it and it isn't going to damage you financially then go for it.

>>16527550
In any good bookstore you can buy a one-volume encyclopedia for a lot less than 80 euro that will serve 90% of your needs.

>>16527550

it can be anything from an accredited university peer reviewed paper to some dude trying to troll.

next to any stat/fact in wiki will be a number in parenthesis or sometimes it will say citation needed.

if you see something important to you, why not click the number and read its source?

>>16527642
just to add a second thought, because wiki is written by volunteers as this anon mentioned
>>16527579
it means that they can be interpretations of things too.
you shouldn't use it as a reference in school because it's not a generator of material.

>>16527550
I'm a regular wikipiedia editor, so I have some insight

1. wikipedia is only reliable if you CHECK THE SOURCES, those little blue numbers arn't decorative
an article can be well written and completely fabricated, or make little sense but be dead on

2. there is a lot of interest bias, things more people are interested in are better covered

3. groups DO run disinfo campaigns, from changing language subtly, to separating information they want to hide from he main article
ever see a page about a general subject, but it has it's own controversy page?
o a list of important events, but key events arn't summarized, only linked to
that's disinfo at work

I'd invest in a hard copy encyclopedia if you want information on phisical or natural sciences, or history

>>16527726
this about sums it up. I have yet to find an undiscutatble lie on wikipedia but some bias is there on some pages. then again payed info sources are written by people with oppinions too.
usually if you go to any debt (beyond where wiki is usefull) into a topic you will be reading research papers instead of an encyclopedia so better get a subscription to that.