This conversation is closed.

What are the best sources for reliable information on the web?

I know that this won't sit well with many of you but I'd say that it's Wikipedia.

And the fact that I'm referencing a Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia seems to be so contradicting and stupid, but before you criticize please check some of the sources provided in this article.

  • thumb
    Jan 3 2014: Agreed
  • Jan 11 2014: I always start with a search and then research the source (usually multiple sources)
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2014: Well, honestly speaking. there are no reliable and authentic sources exactly available on the web. What you have to do is to search your query in different sites and gather information from different sites which is similar. In this way, the information & data you gathered becomes authentic upto some extent and reliable.
  • Jan 2 2014: Hi Jimmy,I think no matter where information comes from,never try to count on where the websites they are from,I think i would like to keep the attitude to deal with information around me:searching,thinking,observing,learning, magical the circle it is:)That's life.
  • Jan 2 2014: Am I the only one who thinks Wikipedia should use interactive info-graphics? I'm a very visual person and I would love to see interactive content, with images, charts, animations, you get better understanding of things.
  • Jan 2 2014: Wikipedia has my vote also! Hau'oli Makahiki Hou Jimmy.
  • thumb
    Jan 2 2014: Happy new year~!Jimmy~!:)

    I think one point is if you want to know some information about events happening outside your country on the web, the best way is to ask directly as many people in that country as you can to know the truth.:)
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2014: Happy new year Yoka!

      I'm not so sure about asking inhabitants of nations to have a clear picture about their own nation because of mass media and the content that it promotes...

      Like how aware are you of what is happening in Hong Kong right now?
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2014: Yes, it should be the people in that place. If you want to know exactly about what's happening in Hongkong, your best choice should be to ask people in Hongkong instead of people like me in Shanghai. I don't trust meida either. Thx for the link, I 'll see it if I can access it.
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2014: I'm really curious, do you view Hon Kong as a separate country in China?

          The title of the article (in case you can't read it) is

          "Tens of thousands of people will rally in Hong Kong on Wednesday to call for universal suffrage, as the city grapples with how its future leaders will be chosen under a long-awaited political reform."
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2014: I definitely think Hongkong is part of China. I don't feel many Honkong people reject this. The media you used is under doubt. However, I 'd like to ask people there before I believe it's true or not.
  • Jan 2 2014: Regarding life sciences, NCBI, EMBL-EBI.
  • thumb
    Jan 1 2014: It is a difficult one, Jimmy. Wikipedia is without a doubt the most complete one stop shop for almost anything you want to know about. I use it a lot when I run through something I didn't know about and just looking for the BASIC information on something, and I don't have much time in my hand and just looking for a simple explanation. However, knowing Wikipedia is far from reliable, I would never use it as a formal or official reference for anything. The thing is quite anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, and there's no knowing whether they're actually reliable for those info (I actually wrote 2-3 Wiki articles on topics of my interest and the citations don't necessarily always work).

    Wikipedia is definitely the site that is close to having it all, but it's far from reliable. As long as you're not solely using Wikipedia to make a life-changing decision, or anything of important magnitude, I think it's quite fine.
    I think there isn't one single best source for reliable info on the web. You have to cross-check several webs out there and compare, and make a conclusion out of them.
    • thumb
      Jan 1 2014: Hi Dewi,

      Did you read the article that I provided?

      "Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors"."

      is right up there on the top. And there are 211 reference sources that you can check.

      Wikipedia IS reliable, and it's very, very in-depth on most topics if you wish to study those things.

      I don't know but things like the Lipid Bilayar seem pretty advanced to me.
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: Hi Jimmy,
        Actually I just ran through them, that's why I mentioned about the citation that doesn't necessarily support the article (or even non-existent) because I've checked them several time when I'm on wiki.

        Again, for something such as the Lipid Bilayar which I've never even heard before, I'd take wikipedia's word for it. I am most likely not gonna make important decision based on that info anyhow. But the link about Wiki's reliability did say that they cross reference on topics in medical and scientific fields, which are perhaps contributed by people who has the credibility and knowledge to write about these fields.

        But on history, and culture, when even a book are hardly objective, you can find even the most basic mistakes. Here's an example:
        Mistake 1: "The name Minangkabau is thought to be a conjunction of two words, minang ("victorious") and kabau ("buffalo")." --> wrong, "minang" doesn't mean victorious, "manang" does, and the pronunciation somewhat changes over time it became "Minang Kabau" instead of "Manang Kabau"

        Mistake 2: They provided a sample of the marawa flag, which looks like the German flag from 90 degrees angle, which is totally wrong. The marawa flag is never square (the caption should have said the COLORS of marawa flag instead of the flag itself), it's usually a triangular long flag as shown in the following link:

        Maybe for topics more universally or generally known, those that are mainstream, these basic deviations are less likely - I never quite checked them.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2014: I fully agree that there are errors in Wikipedia, But in general and in-depth it's the best source on the web that I've been able to find. Nothing is perfect, but I haven't found anything that is better and more reliable, have you?
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: I agree that it does provide an excellent encyclopedic source at your hand. And no, I've never found another site that's got even half of what wiki has. Still, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's reliable. Since it's totally anonymous, you can't hold anyone's credibility over whatever's on wikipedia. Anyone can change a wiki article with little effort, and it'll remain that way until another person fixes it. And I think there's a danger of taking it for granted if we start saying wiki is reliable.

        Although limited to selected subjects, TED is a good and reliable source of information, what do you think?
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2014: Could you please point me to a reliable source that I can scrutinize to see the differences? Encyclopedia Britannica for example, widely know as the best encyclopedia in the world, has more errors and is way more incomplete than Wikipedia. Also Wikipedia is really good at removing false information

          When you say TED, do you mean the Talks or Conversation? I think TED is great to get you started on something, however there are many inaccuracies in many Talks and because of TED's high status many often believe in everything that is presented in Talks.

          Conversations is according to me not a very good place for information at all, it's mostly vocal uninformed (or somewhat informed) opinion as anyone can and will join in...
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: I think a reliable information is a trustworthy information. If you're not familiar to the subject, however, it's hard to say whether certain information source is reliable or not. At the very least, when the information comes from a reliable source, you'll be more informed of how reliable the information is based on its source.

        I mean TED Talks, of course, not Conversation. You're right about the possible tendencies for people to believe in everything said in sources such as TED or Encyclopedia Britannica, given their status. But at the very least you can attribute the inaccuracies to the speaker/source itself.

        Just as TED Conversation, Wikipedia is also a platform that allows anyone to join in and give their subjective opinion. The difference is I am responsible to whatever I write here, as you are, whereas in Wikipedia you can't hold anyone responsible of pretty much any information presented.
  • thumb
    Dec 31 2013: I think YouTube is excellent. Plus there is a chance to comment and reply to comments on almost every video, I have learned quite a bit from conversing with people on YouTube.
    • thumb
      Jan 1 2014: Youtube is great! But it can also lead you astray from the truth. I'm taking about reliability and validity of the different sources of the web.

      But thanks for your input Greg!
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: well, I suppose you have to watch YouTube a bit critically and selectively, but really you have to do that with everything, don't you, Jimmy, I mean I read Wikipedia critically, too (by the way, I agree with you that Wikipedia is excellent.) But I often find YouTube relaxing and informative, it's nice to sit back and let someone else tell you the info rather than reading I mean my eyes get tired, my brain gets tired and with YouTube they can relax a little. I was just watching some interesting YouTube vids on lard, lard is something I got exposed to when I lived in L.A. and visited Mexican markets, but it's not something I know much about.