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

The Vatican does have a corrupt history. In fact very dictatorship.

Plenty to worry about where the Vatican is concerned. The Vatican is very similar to a controlling dictatorship.

I do not understand, as in modern times they only control only those who wish to follow, I suppose that many feel that persuading their followers to not behave as Sodomites and murderous barbarians may upset some people but it is my well travelled observation that religion (regardless of which religion) is a usually a benefit to the average person as the impulses of thieves and murderers (etcetera) are put in check with the imposed sanctions of their creator.

Why not? What makes that source any less reliable than the ones they already use? They'll do anything they want to anyway; they've shown that blatantly throughout history.

Yes, but for research purposes only.

College professors allow online websites for research but do not want students only using such sources.

I know! It's because they want students to do a thorough research, instead of relying on someone elses research such as wikipedia.

Other sites can be just as unreliable

Has Mossad acces to any fridge? Less reliable it makes fact that it is easy to post disinfo there by inteligence community.

Often much more so. Wikipedia which I often use, give facts as they happened or are. Many other websites are self interest groups.

sure wiki is great for quit information but your an idiot if you use it as a reliable source.... wiki monitors it's website for correct information but that doesn't mean it's always right, and sure they have their sources at the bottom but it's still not always right it's best to use a multitude of websites and gather your information through books, people to lazy to visit the library nowadays... no wonder the literacy rate is declining.... (don't comment on my super long running sentence and lack of punctuation....

as a student my teachers always inform us not to use wikipedia as a source for research material only because of how easily it can be changed.

and the fact that i said quit instead of quick

I'm sure the wiki-using Vatican powers-that-be will grant you absolution :)

LOL!

College professors don't discourage using Wikipedia, which actually one needs a good vocabulary to read. Professors don't want their students depending only on online websites for source material. When I went to high school on the East Coast we had no computers. Term papers had to contain experience with factual information, references, and book notes. Many two year colleges have lowered standards accepting any trash students hand in. I graduated a two year college which gave a two week timeline to turn in all tests, taken at the college testing center. You were responsible to have all work turned in with a passing grade or required to take tests over again. Instructors handed back typed papers for error corrections. Students could not move on to next segment until all tests were passed. If they fell behind they were dropped from the course.

much more reliable than foxnews

Sorry this is off-topic, but I've been curious about Fox News for ages - Why does it have such a bad reputation? Thanks in advance.

they are usually one sided right wing propaganda mixed in with real current events to confuse a targeted audience , but more people are starting to catch on because we are living in the digital age so now its easier to get facts so its getting hard for them because more of their people are getting caught lying and inventing stories.

Wikipedia is very reliable because it makes you list your references. End of story.

Only if it is used as 1 of many others for comparative purposes; If different sourcs agree to somthing , then it tends to authenticate the Wikipedia info;

Are we talking about the Saint Louis Cardinals? I did not know that the Vatican was so interested in baseball! Then, again if you watched the 6th game of the World Series, it should not come as any surprise!

A lot more reliable than their other source, the Bible

LOL!

It's a welcome change for them from using the web to surf for child pron.

Wait, you asked two different questions:
1. Should the Vatican use Wikipedia
2. Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information.

These are not the same thing. Yes, everyone should use Wikipedia, it is the greatest source of information in history, the power of thousands of contributors and editors all working towards a common goal. The contributors must come to a consensus, and so the information tends to be only that which everyone can agree upon, and any points in debate are stated as such.

Reliable? No, it cannot be listed as a formal reference. Reliability is relative. Some of the very obscure topics, many of which have never appeared in any encyclopedia, may have few or even only one contributor and so may be biased, incomplete, incorrect, etc. And this should be kept in mind, so these facts and ideas presented in the more obscure topics should be treated as a starting point to further research. Even highly respected and "reliable" sources are incorrect at times.

However, the Vatican should not have lifted those phrases from Wikipedia, that does amount to plagiarism.

No one should rely on a site for accurancy when anyone can go into the site and edit it!

Sure. They're contributing information that is at least properly sourced.

I went to CATHOLIC SCHOOL..IT WAS A LIVING HELL for first to sixth grade...............Then I went to public school.........Freedom of thought.......WOW..........LIFE AT LAST. They write Propaganda...

Did the Nuns rap your knuckle with a ruler if you did not use Wikipedia:

sometimes...I have seen maybe twice some not accurate details, but its pretty good, if not we r all f?cked bc I bet everyone use it

Wikipedia is open source and can be altered and even faked. I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia as a primary source for factual information, especially on controversial opinionated subjects. However, they are allowed to use the information on the sites to which Wikipedia links, provided, of course, that the information they use on those sites is well documented and cited in their work. If they do not, it's called plagiarism .... a crime punishable by a zero grade on the essay (first offense), a zero grade in the course and possible expulsion from the school on the second......and that is a very lenient policy when it comes to plagiarism.

Yes and no. If it is a controversial topic, it CANNOT be trusted except to provide a liberal slant.

It is really bad regarding natural cures.

Another example is a review of their discussion of Obama's eligibility starts out with the word "Conspiracy theorists" and ends the first paragraph by making charges of racism!

it is followed by a defense of his eligibility, despite the undisputed fact that Obama was born a dual citizen with loyalties to both the US and to the UK.

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

Wow - an article about the Vatican turns into yet another birther rant. And for an encore, I'll turn every Beyonce Knowles Sodahead article into a lecture about Emerich de Vattel.

"eligibility ... Dual citizen ..."

As if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

It was a simple example of Wiki's blatant agenda when it comes to controversial issues. Wiki couldn't complete a single paragraph without attacking the motives of those who wish to see Obama turned out of office due to this being ineligible.

A dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen by definition. A dual citizen has divided loyalties at birth. The Framers recognized this threat and specifically included the requirement for presidents and VP's only bit not for Senators or Congressmen.

Obama has shown through is own conflicted attitudes and behavior the wisdom of the Framers' decision to hold to the higher standard for presidents and VP's.

Would you have the article call the concerns legitimate? There is always an allowed bias towards sense, and there certainly are many racist people who argue Obama's citizenship only because of their racism. That point was technically objective, and Wikipedia cited several news sources and studies supporting it. Also, the "born in Kenya" was proven (almost entirely) to be in actuality just a conspiracy theory - objectively.

If one were to accept the highly questionable electronic copy as valid, it proves that Obama is ineligible. His father was never an American citizen, thus Obama is disqualified.

it doesn't matter if one is a member of the KKK or the NCAAP: the facts of his parentage disqualify Obama.

Wiki's need to question motives of those of us who understand Obama's ineligibility in the first paragraph tells you all you need to know about wiki's POV.

By the way, the conservative Republicans Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are also ineligible to be either president or VP.

There are some errors, but for the most part Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT source of information

Probably more reliable than that book thye quote in it's many versions.