Quantcast

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

News 2012/01/09 20:27:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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?


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • prosperhappily 2012/01/09 23:10:45
    Yes
    prosperhappily
    +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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/06/06 16:42:36
    Yes
    KarenInKenoshaWisconsin
    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
  • HippieMan 2012/02/22 23:12:01
  • mm61675 2012/02/10 19:33:20
    No
    mm61675
    In college, my professors always said that if we cited Wikipedia in our papers or assignments, we would get an automatic F
  • topgundy7 2012/01/26 17:19:15
    No
    topgundy7
    I am still fond of encyclopedia Britannica! Thats how out of touch I am. I usually google when I want to know something!
  • TriumphTom 2012/01/22 00:17:19
    No
    TriumphTom
    Though Wikipedia is a good jumping off place for almost any topic you can think of, most of the articles are subjective.
  • niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20 2012/01/17 01:14:09
    Yes
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +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.
  • Tin Man 2012/01/14 22:27:06
    Yes
    Tin Man
    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.
  • KateLenn 2012/01/14 18:05:22
    No
    KateLenn
    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?
  • whimsycrat 2012/01/14 04:05:17 (edited)
    Yes
    whimsycrat
    +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/...
  • stevie.luplow 2012/01/13 21:39:58
    No
    stevie.luplow
    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.
  • fundamental.frequency 2012/01/13 01:43:50
    Yes
    fundamental.frequency
    At the very least it is a point to start in almost every subject.
  • mamacrash 2012/01/13 00:21:35
    No
    mamacrash
    it is only opinions, not facts so the Vatican should not use it.
  • jamiecooper187 2012/01/12 09:35:02
    Yes
    jamiecooper187
    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
  • BILL 2012/01/12 02:27:54
    Yes
    BILL
    Sure the POPE needs to know stuff to, mostly about Priests and Sexual Abuse.
  • synful90 2012/01/11 18:26:39
    No
    synful90
    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.
  • LewisCrise 2012/01/11 16:09:05
    No
    LewisCrise
    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?
  • jacktown kid 2012/01/11 16:08:41
    Yes
    jacktown kid
    Yes it is very resourceful
  • juanito jacktow... 2012/01/14 16:19:26
    juanito
    +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....
  • jacktow... juanito 2012/01/15 20:26:58
    jacktown kid
    ok I just think it is a good thing
  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/01/11 13:51:11
    No
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +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.

    democrat for white man
    MLK republican

    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)
  • AMo45 2012/01/11 13:33:27
    No
    AMo45
    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.
  • Drummerboy 2012/01/11 13:27:20
  • 001 2012/01/11 13:26:40
    Yes
    001
    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.
  • Torchma... 001 2012/01/11 13:59:19
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +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.
  • cccp~marxist-leninst 2012/01/11 08:20:51
    Yes
    cccp~marxist-leninst
    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.
  • Marek 2012/01/11 07:31:28
    Yes
    Marek
    For the most part. Often is incomplete but otherwise it strives to be truthful.
  • jiggy 2012/01/11 06:42:15
    Yes
    jiggy
    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.
  • Shirley 2012/01/11 05:59:29
  • Anariashki 2012/01/11 04:55:27
    Yes
    Anariashki
    Sort of. It has a better verification system than basically all news media outlets.
  • JJ 2012/01/11 04:20:27
    Yes
    JJ
    +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.
  • Andrew Torpie 2012/01/11 04:08:02
    Yes
    Andrew Torpie
    People work at wikipedia and they were hired its a ly more reliable then it used to be.
  • BlazeEagle 2012/01/11 04:07:19
    No
    BlazeEagle
    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.
  • Anariashki BlazeEagle 2012/01/11 05:00:50 (edited)
    Anariashki
    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.
  • strawberry 2012/01/11 03:50:29
    Yes
    strawberry
    +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.
  • findthelight2000 2012/01/11 02:19:00 (edited)
    No
    findthelight2000
    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?
  • strawberry findthe... 2012/01/11 04:05:13
    strawberry
    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.
  • findthe... strawberry 2012/01/11 05:44:43
    findthelight2000
    +1
    Sorry, you are wrong. Colleges do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source of information.
  • strawberry findthe... 2012/01/12 23:25:05
    strawberry
    Have you been to every college in the United States.?
  • findthe... strawberry 2012/01/12 23:42:20
    findthelight2000
    No, but if they want to be accredited, they do follow this principle action.
  • strawberry findthe... 2012/01/13 02:04:57
    strawberry
    Where is your factual source.?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 00:46:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals