Do every space related article in wikipedia is absolutely correct?
why link to that site is given mostly with an answer?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
No, but the Wikipedia stuff is often correct and gives a good overview over the topic including often references to other proper sources.
Also, Wikipedia is not less often correct than other printed encyclopedias, so it can't be bad.
But some spaceflight articles in Wikipedia often need corrections... there are even people who need to revert edits despite showing them a proper source on a NASA server.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Anyone can "correct" what they think is an error. Sometimes high school kids "correct" articles written by PhDs. It's a constant battle to weed out falsehood. If you think an article may be wrong, see what has been said on the discussion page for the article. Register as a Wikipedia user and you may add your own comments.
Wikipedia does not allow "primary source" references such as research papers. The primary source must be filtered thru a "respectable media source", such as a peer-review journal. I once posted a reference to official minutes of a Congressional subcommittee, where DOD requested funding to create the AIDS virus in 1969. My reference was disallowed because Congress is a primary source; any media source that dares to challenge the government on the AIDS issue is automatically branded as unreliable. (You can read it for yourself at any large rrepositoryof federal documents, such as the law library at your state's legislature. The Sudoc# is Y4.Ap6/1:D36/5/970/part6 pp. 104-144)
- wilde_spaceLv 71 decade ago
It provides references to scientific papers and articles, so I consider it a reliable source. Science is never absolutely correct, there are always corrections or new things discovered. But as far as online encyclopedias go, Wiki is the best. So much information at a few clicks.
- eriLv 71 decade ago
Absolutely correct? No, but it's pretty good. Good enough that many scientists and science students start there as a first reference to find some of the important papers in the field. I know many scientists who are involved in writing and maintaining articles.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- rivenbarkLv 44 years ago
Wikipedia isn't stable in any admire. web pages are oftentimes no longer stable by using fact all of us can placed something on the internet. you are able to't use wikipedia as a form of analyze for the reason which you should continuously cite your paintings once you're writing background. in case you tried to quote any internet source on your analyze, different than expert web pages, like government pages or newspapers, you would be laughed at. the internet can in no way replace a e book while it contains analyze.
- GeoffGLv 71 decade ago
I don't know of any source, on the internet or elsewhere, which is absolutely correct, but Wikipedia is much better than average most of the time.Source(s): I've consulted hundreds of Wikipedia astronomy articles.
- Marie KLv 71 decade ago
considering it is written by common folk I would assume some material has common errors
I think it is quoted because it is a quick and dirty way to find an answer
it helps if you know a domain you want to search like NASA or NOAA