Wikipedia Reliability

[Billy]

Every transfer story is added to Wikipedia. 1 in 10 rumours are bound to be correct, so it is hardly surprising the occasional one makes Wikipedia look reliable.

It isn't.

 

[Jak]

use it for hwk and stuff but football transfers no chance. About as reliable as goal.com :S

 

[The Bath Manager]

I use it for all my studying. Hate it when my teacher searches and it has copied my homework though tbh...

 

[dennis23294]

If you have doubts about something then just ****** look at the sources at the bottom of the page :|

 

[alicwkd]

its incredibly unreliable for football since anyone can edit it.

On Zheng Zhi's page it says he had to leave Scotland because the food gave him chronic diorhea!

 

[manal 1990]

It's useful if you need some information common

But, can not be relied upon in some important information

 

[Halbard]

For footy things, dont rely on it.
For other things, its reliable as long as there is a decent number of citations.
I edited it myself a couple of times, about AC/DC.

 

[Redrup]

I use it for broadening my general knowledge, for football - **** to the no.

 

[Cal.]

The Coloccini's Hair Style entry has been removed after three days :'(

 

[brendan_]

So unreliable. Anyone who uses it in a Uni essay will get slammed for it, and failed immediately.

Anybody can access it and anyone can edit the info you see. I suppose its ok for random facts and ****, but nothing else.

to be honest its great for psychology, dont source that but look at the sources they use... wouldn't use for football but the smaller the demograph that uses the subject the greater the relliance for it

 

[csa99]

i use it all the time but its never for football really or especially football transfers as there are many other sites dedicated to football anmd transfers so why use wikipedia?
i find it is reliable for general knowlage things