Anything better than wikipedia out there?

[meheez]

Is wikipedia the single most usefull collection of info? Anyone know anything better?

I feel like alot of my research on life takes place in that website.I do realise it lacks depth and complexity ,though. I hope im not missing out on any other important source of info out there.

[Blueobelisk]

>Google a question.
>Only care about first page's results.
>"If it's good enough for Google, it's good enough for me."

I thought that was the standard research method.

[THE Bigzoman]

Lexis Nexus.

Googlescholar.

Your local library.

A college library.

Various government websites.

Data from various think tanks.

Course Textbooks.

Published literature.

Local courthouses.

If you're accessing academic sources, the sources they use to come to their conclusions until you reach the bottom.


TONS of things better than wikipedia.

[Muzjhath]

These days most "main stream" wikipedia pages are really good for a layman. Yes there are other alternatives and you should always try to find more than one source. This is absolutely true. However on the internet for a layperson it is the best single one out there.
They also list their own sources so a great way to find more detailed sources through the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion Take this article on the Lion for example. It is far more extensive than most lexicons would have it as well as comes with sources from where the information can be verified. Something most classic book dictionaries didn't.

So, while there are other gatherings of information out there, unless you're studying an extremely specific subject and thus delving deep into research articles or want specialized information wikipedia is among the best options out there. For the latter it even supplies you links on further reading.
On the former Googlescholar helps you search databases in bulk.

[SpcGuts]

In terms of an encyclopedic collection of information, wikipedia is your best bet and is generally more reliable than an actual encyclopedia. While anyone can edit it, the wiki community is pretty good at policing the pages, at least the more popular pages. Wikipedia still isn't considered a reputable source though. The citations in wikipedia often lead to dead links or to sources which state something different than what is implied in the wiki article.

Bigzoman's list includes reputable sources, but as you can see, it will take a bit more effort to find and vet the information you seek.

The problem is every source of information is not 100% reliable. Every source can contain obsolete information and some sources can be extremely biased.

Usually academic journals are pretty reliable, especially if you are able to access the most recent publications. Even things published in academic journals can be suspect though. Not all academic journals are created equal, some are peer reviewed while others are not. Also if you are reading an academic paper which is published in a seemingly unrelated journal, it is probably because the paper could not pass the peer review of a more related journal.

Basically, for just a general overview of a topic, wikipedia is usually fine. If you want to know more, or if something seems shady about the wiki article, than the next step would be to research it yourself using a variety of sources. Don't stop at the first source you find because you could be reading something that has been thoroughly refuted by many other sources.

Here is a wikipedia list of many academic databases, some of which are free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...search_engines

[draganid]

wikipedia is pretty good about policing their site. i remember like 4 or 5 years ago, i brought bernie mack back from the dead and added to his page how his death was a lie and slanderous and that shit got reverted back within a couple minutes and my ip address was banned from editing wikipedia ever again lol

[Jester Joe]

local library.

Yes, come to the library so I can stick you on Wikipedia mwuhahahaha

But serious note, Wikipedia is only really the best at giving quick to find information, and even then google scholar could probably beat it out if you get used to using it.

That being said, nothing wrong with Wikipedia if you're using it for self studying, and not college work.

The biggest thing about Wikipedia is checking if the information is cited honestly, usually near the bottom of will say where the information came from.

[THE Bigzoman]

Yes, come to the library so I can stick you on Wikipedia mwuhahahaha

But serious note, Wikipedia is only really the best at giving quick to find information, and even then google scholar could probably beat it out if you get used to using it.

That being said, nothing wrong with Wikipedia if you're using it for self studying, and not college work.

The biggest thing about Wikipedia is checking if the information is cited honestly, usually near the bottom of will say where the information came from.

Even than you wanna verify what exactly the writer cited straight from the source.

Some people take paraphrasing to whole new levels and add shit never intended from the source.

[Deleted]

It depends what for. Wikipedia is often relatively reliable, at least for certain types of articles, if a little basic. But it's a very general site. If you want more in depth information, or more accurate information about a particular topic, you'd need to go somewhere specifically catered to that topic. There are publications about various diseases, for example, that you could find in a library or on the internet that will go into more detail than the wikipedia article, but not really anything that's as general as wikipedia but also more accurate or more in depth.

[Stelio Kontos]

I'm the best source there is. Come at me with your queries, bro dawg!

[Wildtree]

>Google a question.
>Only care about first page's results.
>"If it's good enough for Google, it's good enough for me."

I thought that was the standard research method.

That's a bad idea.....
For something to be on the first result page does not mean it's the best source. It only means those pages have better search engine optimization.
You definitely want to check with the first 5 pages....

[Herecius]

A wikipedia page is only as good as its sources. Always scroll to the bottom and check the sources, and whenever possible use those sources instead.

[zealo]

If you are using google to search for information, make sure you are using the scholar version so peer reviewed content is what appears.

[Wildtree]

It depends what for. Wikipedia is often relatively reliable, at least for certain types of articles, if a little basic. But it's a very general site. If you want more in depth information, or more accurate information about a particular topic, you'd need to go somewhere specifically catered to that topic. There are publications about various diseases, for example, that you could find in a library or on the internet that will go into more detail than the wikipedia article, but not really anything that's as general as wikipedia but also more accurate or more in depth.

Wikipedia is an interactive source, that's maintained by the public. You need a wiki acct, and you can start go ahead editing around. It's a work in progress, and depending on the search term on wiki, it can be utter crap, or the best source there's to be found.
People often mistake it for two things.
Taking it like a lexicon, overlooking the work in progress aspect. And, most people don't bother with the footnotes...
Most wiki pages are filled with footnote links, that are found on the bottom.
A claim made usually has a [number] shown, and clicking that number leads to the source reference of the claim.
All in all, Wiki is a very good source and starting block, if one knows how to properly use and understand it.

[Independent voter]

I like Wikipedia. It's only going to get better with time.

[Dezerte]

Going straight to the source(s) is your best option, e.g. something like google scholar. Do however take care and be critical of the material, just because something was peer reviewed by someone on some page doesn't mean it's credible - don't forget to check the credentials of the journals themselves too. It's also not unheard of for researchers to claim their paper was peer-reviewed, what they don't mention is that it didn't pass.

Wikipedia may not always be up-to-date and can also sometimes cite physical material (i.e. books) or dead links.

[Life-Binder]

yes its overall the best

but it alone isn't enough, so google is your best friend

[Voij]

That's a bad idea.....
For something to be on the first result page does not mean it's the best source. It only means those pages have better search engine optimization.
You definitely want to check with the first 5 pages....

Reminds me of a terrible joke.
If you ever commit murder, then the best place to hide the body is on page 3 of Google's search results. No sane person would ever look there.

Anywho, your chances of finding more credible sources on the next 4 pages are not that much higher, tbh. Most important aspect is to generally not put too much focus on the first 3-5 results, but the rest of the first page tends to be fairly reliable. And if they aren't, then you need to improve how you use google, not how many pages you look at.

[Deleted]

Go through the sources on the wikipedia article.

[nocturnus]

There is no single source of best information. Research means gathering information from various sources, comparing them, filtering discrepancies, researching those and reaching a more profound understanding after which you could formulate a hypothesis.

Wikipedia is a fine source of superficial information, as long as it's not your only source.