Brits trust Wikipedia more than the BBC and newspapers

[Masark]

I'm not sure whether it's Wikipedia getting better or other sources getting worse.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/09/...ia-trust-news/

[NewOrleansTrolley]

To be fair.. 61% is pretty good. I think like 9% of Americans trust Congress.

[Kalis]

Times, Torygraph and Grauniad don't deserve such high ratings, they all push their not-so-hidden agendas in their articles, however the Guardian has Amy Lawrence, so not all is lost.

ITV has always been at the 'cheaper' end of news, and were dumbing down their content well before that became a popular phrase, whereas BBC and Channel 4 tend to treat their viewers as adults, though the BBC also has a tendency to dumb down.

Wikipedia cite their sources, that you can check, so it's not particularly unsurprising that people find that to be more trustworthy.

Mail and Express are just rags for Little Englanders, the Mirror has quite good sports coverage, but nothing else to recommend it, and the Sun has tits and doesn't even take itself seriously.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Now if only English teachers will stop waving around their hateboners for wikipedia.

[Archangel Tyrael]

Oh Brits, what happened to you?

[CandyFresh]

[QUOTE=Masark;28803681]I'm not sure whether it's Wikipedia getting better or other sources getting worse.[QUOTE]

Likely other sources getting worse...especially the BBC. It's often criticised for being e.g. Left-wing & pro-Israel. Wikipedia appears more factual & less biased.

[Kalis]

Doesnt surprise me, BBC is notoriously bias when it comes to home news.

In what way are they biased in UK news?

[AeneasBK]

Since the BBC is nearly always headed by a member of the aristocracy I don't trust it to deliver the news that I need to know.

Especially after the week devoted to the Ipswich Strangler when Tony Blair was being arrested for corruption.

I'm more paranoid than the average Brit though, probably.

[Flutterguy]

Now if only English teachers will stop waving around their hateboners for wikipedia.

It was the same with Cliffs Notes for literature. They want you to actually do the research, not read someone else's summary of research and effectively copying it.

[Deleted]

In what way are they biased in UK news?

They're very biased regarding South

[TZucchini]

Wikipedia is just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. People should have more faith in it.

[Reeve]

The BBC is excellent.

[Deleted]

I'm surprised the BBC scored so high.

- - - Updated - - -

The BBC is excellent.

Compared to your american news sources, maybe, they're still bias though.

[Kalis]

Many of the articles clearly favour the view of Westminster. And their coverage isnt that great when it comes to news outside of Westminster.

They're very biased regarding South

They have local news stations dedicated to news in the various regions in the country. The national news reports on national events, which are largely going to focus on the place where the important national decisions are made that affect 60m people, and where one of the most important economic centres in the world is located.

People in Cornwall don't need to know about random crap going on in Newcastle, as it has little effect on them.

[MerinPally]

Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate if you use it for the right kinds of stuff. If you go and look at the page of a footballer just after a missed penalty, you'll find out he was born in the throes of hell and lost his sight as a small boy but his blindness didn't stop him from achieveing his goal. If you go and look at someone who a 14 year old has to research for a school project you will discover they were a massive faggot.

But then when you start getting technical, people look at the symbols and equations and get scared or just don't go there unless they're researching. It's surprisingly accurate and contains a lot of sources at the bottom. The more technical you go, the better wikipedia gets. Our lecturers advocate using wikipedia as a go to if you don't understand something and then just checking quickly after somewhere else to confirm.

I am somewhat horrified by the number of people who consider the Daily Mail to be accurate though. Fucking cancer, causing so many immigrants.

[Deleted]

I dont understand the hate for Wikipedia, its a great resource and if your unsure of what you see, you can always check the sources.

I think the main problem is that people cite Wikipedia for something that's wrong, and which doesn't have a source attached. I've seen my fair share of Wiki articles with a "This article lacks citations" boilerplate from 2007-2008 and so on.

[GennGreymane]

dont trust news because you think its inaccurate

BETTER TRUST WIKI!

[MerinPally]

Whilst people are saying how good it is the BBC scored that, frankly I think it's not great and should be higher than that. It's still one of the best news sources in the world when you look at it from more than a purely home perspective. The fact that 39% don't trust them has me a little worried. If you don't trust the BBC then who do you trust, the list of superior news sources is not large.

[Deleted]

Whilst people are saying how good it is the BBC scored that, frankly I think it's not great and should be higher than that. It's still one of the best news sources in the world when you look at it from more than a purely home perspective. The fact that 39% don't trust them has me a little worried. If you don't trust the BBC then who do you trust, the list of superior news sources is not large.

As far as BBC's trustworthiness is concerned, I'm reminded of a quote along the lines of "You know the BBC has got it right, when they're criticised by Labour of sucking up to the Tories, and by the Tories for sucking up to Labour!".

[Jester Joe]

To be fair, when I was in high school only a few years ago if you edited wikipedia it would stay there for a day or two, now it's gone rather quickly it seems.