The Vatican Uses Wikipedia: Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source of Information?

by SodaHead News Posted 2012/01/09 20:27:00

Related Topics: Vatican, Wikipedia, Vatican Wikipedia, Lifestyle, Weird News

614 votes
Read all 330 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	349 votes	57%
	No	265 votes	43%

If you've been in school in the last five or six years, there's a good chance you've been told not to cite Wikipedia in your term paper. That's because "wiki" implies the website is written and maintained by anyone who's interested. But according to BBC, the Vatican has been using the Italian version of the site to write press biographies for 22 new cardinals.

They argue it was just an unofficial brief to help journalists, but people caught on to the source when they noticed the biographies described the cardinals as "Catholic." A few of them also used oddly subjective phrases, naming William Jacobus Eijk "one of the most talked about religious men in the country," and wordings you wouldn't expect from the Vatican, like "strong leaning towards conservatism." Do you think Wikipedia is reliable enough for the Vatican to use -- or is it more than a little strange?

+25

Add a comment above

prosperhappily 2012/01/09 23:10:45

Yes

+17
I wouldn't bet my life or career on it. But, it's fine for satisfying general curiosity and pointing you to primary sources.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead News

KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/06/06 16:42:36

Yes

Depends on the entry. So not an absolute yes. It's a good place to start and as fallible as it is, it's still tremendously invaluable, overall.

Binary logic is not a good way to size any wiki up -- see Wikipedia's "false dilemma" entry.

lol

reply
HippieMan 2012/02/22 23:12:01
mm61675 2012/02/10 19:33:20

No

In college, my professors always said that if we cited Wikipedia in our papers or assignments, we would get an automatic F

reply
topgundy7 2012/01/26 17:19:15

No

I am still fond of encyclopedia Britannica! Thats how out of touch I am. I usually google when I want to know something!

reply
TriumphTom 2012/01/22 00:17:19

No

Though Wikipedia is a good jumping off place for almost any topic you can think of, most of the articles are subjective.

reply
niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20 2012/01/17 01:14:09

Yes

+1
Yes, it is superior to any encyclopeadia and is maturing; is not even 18 years old and look what it does.

Is an excellent alternative to the closed minded and alienating curriculum in any academis institution.

Is not only open source, but also open minded.

reply
Tin Man 2012/01/14 22:27:06

Yes

But to a limited degree. The info tho' often accurate is often also incomplete. The Vatican, I believe, should also be aboveboard and cite it when they use it.

reply
KateLenn 2012/01/14 18:05:22

No

It is a start on basic information, but to quote it is risky. Now that I've read this I might just update some wiki; to influence the Vatican. Evil isn't it?

reply
whimsycrat 2012/01/14 04:05:17 (edited)

Yes

+1
It is what it is. The reason you may have been told not to cite Wikipedia in your term papers is not so much the "Wiki" part of it as it is perhaps the "pedia" part. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, can be a good place to begin your research, a place to start, not and end in itself. An encyclopedia can be a good reference for general knowledge and as prosperhappily points out, Wikipedia can be a good source for primary resources, or at least secondary resources. Even Wikipedia tells you that it is just a place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

reply
stevie.luplow 2012/01/13 21:39:58

No

I've found misinformation on wikipedia many times. It is a page created by people, not people that make sure they fact check and get things right, but regular old human beings. I could go on there and make a page about The Lion King and say the main character is Cinderella and Prince Charming and it would probably not be challenged for awhile.

reply
fundamental.frequency 2012/01/13 01:43:50

Yes

At the very least it is a point to start in almost every subject.

reply
mamacrash 2012/01/13 00:21:35

No

it is only opinions, not facts so the Vatican should not use it.

reply
jamiecooper187 2012/01/12 09:35:02

Yes

considering all wikipedia content is peer reviewed, id say its vastly more accurate than fir example any Bible so yeah, one is a moron to not use wikipedia

reply
BILL 2012/01/12 02:27:54

Yes

Sure the POPE needs to know stuff to, mostly about Priests and Sexual Abuse.

reply
synful90 2012/01/11 18:26:39

No

to a point it is but it's not 100%. i can't even use any information from it to write papers in school because the teachers don't find it credible.

reply
LewisCrise 2012/01/11 16:09:05

No

It seems obvious to me that the Romanist catholic church of Satan must write whatever they are citing themselves. But you know, they also have their own encyclopedia so why bother with Wikipedia?

reply
jacktown kid 2012/01/11 16:08:41

Yes

Yes it is very resourceful

reply
juanito to jacktow... 2012/01/14 16:19:26

+1
Despite all the lies and fraud on Wikipedia, this bogus online "encyclopedia" is today the most dominant reference source in the English speaking world. It is far more influential than many people realize or imagine, thanks to the power of the internet.

http://www.banned-in-america....

reply
jacktow... to juanito 2012/01/15 20:26:58

ok I just think it is a good thing

reply
Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/01/11 13:51:11

No

+1
For the most part, it is fairly reliable on many subjects. It cannot be taken as the final word on some subjects, such as the KKK and Hitler. The Progressives keep changing the historical facts so as to DISTANCE themselves from THEIR historical past. They used 'sources' that are actually leftist opinion articles or books.

They are easily debunked:

The KKK was formed in the 1860s by the Debtocrats and murdered black and WHITE Republicans. They were still killing them into the 1960s when, under the leadership of klansman and senator Robert Byrd, they filibustered two Republican civil rights bills. The first black senator and congressmen were all Republicans. They murdered Republican MLK.

Adolf Hitler's leftwing views and actions are also being distanced by progressive opinion articles and books. The historical facts are glaring:
Hitler was devout evolutionist and hater of God. Almost all socialist and communist dictators have murdered millions because of religion. Our government has set that number to around 90 million? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bc...

Published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolsh...&

For the most part, it is fairly reliable on many subjects. It cannot be taken as the final word on some subjects, such as the KKK and Hitler. The Progressives keep changing the historical facts so as to DISTANCE themselves from THEIR historical past. They used 'sources' that are actually leftist opinion articles or books.

They are easily debunked:

The KKK was formed in the 1860s by the Debtocrats and murdered black and WHITE Republicans. They were still killing them into the 1960s when, under the leadership of klansman and senator Robert Byrd, they filibustered two Republican civil rights bills. The first black senator and congressmen were all Republicans. They murdered Republican MLK.

Adolf Hitler's leftwing views and actions are also being distanced by progressive opinion articles and books. The historical facts are glaring:
Hitler was devout evolutionist and hater of God. Almost all socialist and communist dictators have murdered millions because of religion. Our government has set that number to around 90 million? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bc...

Published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)--Adolf Hitler
Can't get more leftwing than Hitler
(more)

reply
AMo45 2012/01/11 13:33:27

No

Anyone including myself can add, change or correct information presented on Wiki.If you use it as with anything else you read check where the source of their information was derived from.There is far too much opinion intertwined with fact in all sources of journalism and media.From everything presented as factual (and isn't) I question how many user are diligent enough to do so.

reply
Drummerboy 2012/01/11 13:27:20
Syl 2012/01/11 13:26:40

Yes

I hate it when my teachers say I'm not allowed to use Wiki as a source. The history books tell a slightly different story in every country, but they can be used as a 'reliable' source.

reply
Torchma... to Syl 2012/01/11 13:59:19

+2
Even school books have been edited, revised or have otherwise omitted historical facts to support the leftwing agenda. My 1993 college sociology book was one such book. Myself and only one other person questioned the bizarre information that was presented in that book and proved it to be false. The book used Kinseys (proven false) data as fact. Hollyweird even made a movie to glorify this Kinsey pervert/pedophile. Kinseys information is easily debunked by the CDC. This should be illegal. We paid good money for an education and got propaganda instead.

reply
cccp~marxist-leninst 2012/01/11 08:20:51

Yes

I am Catholic and I think it is OK. However, I think some Catholics like the current pope are complete Dumbasses and will produce biased opinions on wikipedia.

reply
Marek 2012/01/11 07:31:28

Yes

For the most part. Often is incomplete but otherwise it strives to be truthful.

reply
jiggy 2012/01/11 06:42:15

Yes

Generally speaking, anyway. The Vatican's use is fine. People need to understand that there are levels of acceptable leading up to unacceptable. It's not like they are citing Wikipedia in a Doctoral Thesis. They probably had some low-level deacon or nun do some busy work. Big woop.

If I were a k-12 teacher, I'd personally accept wikipedia citations for the majority of papers. If it was for an AP class, I wouldn't. Not so much because the information would/could be wrong, but because there is a higher level of expectation and therefor a higher level of work that needs to be done by the student.

This is just such a non-problem. It doesn't matter. It doesn't need to be worried about.

reply
Shirley 2012/01/11 05:59:29

No

Actually yes and no. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source of information to cite as one's reference material, but it's a valid source for beginning a search...sometimes the references a person has cited in a Wikipedia article are good sources and are worth checking into -- but those sources may or may not turn out to be appropriately cited.

reply
Anariashki 2012/01/11 04:55:27

Yes

Sort of. It has a better verification system than basically all news media outlets.

reply
JJ 2012/01/11 04:20:27

Yes

+1
I've used it, but I'm the type that goes into other sources to find my info if I feel Wikipedia doesn't have the full answers. To get to the truth of a subject, lots of times you have to dig. And even then, sometimes you have to settle for what comes the closes to that truth.

reply
Andrew Torpie 2012/01/11 04:08:02

Yes

People work at wikipedia and they were hired its a ly more reliable then it used to be.

reply
BlazeEagle 2012/01/11 04:07:19

No

No it’s not ok for the Vatican to cite Wikipedia & here’s why -

In my personal experience at least, General consumers, students, ETC. are told they can’t cite Wikipedia as an official source, Therefore it’s hypocritical to allow an official organization such as the Vatican to do so.

I believe in God but in a positive yet untraditional manner & I have no problem with the Vatican citing Wikipedia yet since the Vatican cites Wikipedia, That gives Wikipedia more legitimacy.

Since the Vatican is ok with citing Wikipedia, General consumers, students, ETC. should be allowed to use Wikipedia for official citation purposes as well.

In this regard at least, My problem truly isn’t with the Vatican citing Wikipedia, It’s the hypocrisy involved that’s my problem.

reply
Anariashki to BlazeEagle 2012/01/11 05:00:50 (edited)

I don't think what the Vatican is "allowed" to do has any value as a precedent for what businesses, students, and other secular entities are allowed to do. The rules for churches are always weird compared to the rules for everyone else. They're allowed to practice sex discrimination in the appointment of clergy and they pay no taxes. There aren't many other entities that get both of those allowances.

reply
strawberry 2012/01/11 03:50:29

Yes

+1
Wikipedia is a non biased online encyclopedia which gives factual information. Those who don't like factual information which contradicts their opinions find fault with Wikipedia. College professors don't want students to only rely on websites for information. This has nothing to do with validity of Wikipedia. Professors want students to use books and a variety of informational sources.

reply
findthelight2000 2012/01/11 02:19:00 (edited)

No

Absolutely not! You try using Wikipedia in College, you receive a failing grade - it's that simple..., minded.

Besides, since when have people of religion been concerned with History, Science, or the truth?

reply
strawberry to findthe... 2012/01/11 04:05:13

College professors don't want students to only use online website sources. Many students are too lazy to take books from a library or other sources. Wikipedia is a very good source of factual information concerning history, science, etc. Colleges I went to or my children, even in high school required certain protocol. Opinions had to be backed up with experience and factual information. My English professors in colleges would return papers for corrections, including spelling and grammatical errors before grading. There was no giving failing grades. If a student fell behind, he or she was dropped from the course. East Coast Colleges are very tough, including some Midwest Colleges.

reply
findthe... to strawberry 2012/01/11 05:44:43

+1
Sorry, you are wrong. Colleges do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source of information.

reply
strawberry to findthe... 2012/01/12 23:25:05

Have you been to every college in the United States.?

reply
findthe... to strawberry 2012/01/12 23:42:20

No, but if they want to be accredited, they do follow this principle action.

reply
strawberry to findthe... 2012/01/13 02:04:57

Where is your factual source.?

reply