Some people think that Wikipedia, being free, offers less quality than other sources of information. Considering that there are people who write 10,000 articles a day, it is obvious that we are not going to obtain very elaborate information, but we will find many available topics. But despite that, Wikipedia is a reliable source, at least in general terms .
Anyone can fill in an article with missing data, and that sometimes leads to misinformation. But the community itself is capable of correcting quite a few problems. When that's not the case, Wikipedia has moderators, who usually find bugs within hours (or days, at most) and fix them. If necessary, an item can be locked, to prevent vandalism. And it is that certain questions raise too many controversies .
Don't forget that Wikipedia may give up accuracy to some extent, but in return, it updates at lightning speedsand deals with all sorts of topics. It is something that other more "professional" projects cannot afford, since their resources are much more limited. Obviously, there is no perfect formula .
So we can say that Wikipedia represents a reliable source. It has errors, of course, but other traditional encyclopedias also have them It may not be useful for academic subjects, but for the general public it is a very valuable source of information .
What do you think about this topic? Do you trust Wikipedia, or does a project with so little control give you too much confidence?
