G or w

What if I can get Wikipedia from Google?...

probably Google, Google I can find obscure articles Wiki don't have.

Also, Google is a company while Wiki relies on user donations. Which I think most people (like me) are cheap and can't donate lol

 

Also Wikipedia is very unreliable as most of it's information is added by users.

 

Both? They serve different purposes.

 

NOT true! While Wikipedia does rely on users to generate it's content there is a REALLY high standard that wiki holds it's users to and if you look at the bottom of every wiki page you will see a LONG list of sources.

As far as the Poll question.....I use them for different purposes. Google to find. Wiki to understand

 

Even their own page shows the many ways Wikipedia is unreliable.

 

Wikipedia's model is essentially open-source information, which is inherently flawed. Although they demand sources, those sources can be just as unreliable, and a lot of the information presented is either speculative or too open to various interpretations. There are certain fields, like Mathematics and Technology, where the information is fairly reliable, but on the latter there are still much better resources for information.[citation needed]

And Google isn't a source of information at all.

 

However, it has been proven to be equally accurate to a normal encyclopedia. Professionals are mislead easily too. So, it is a flawed system, but it's not at all a bad way to learn new things. I'd say 98% of the content is reliable. You can almost always tell what isn't by the quality of the writing and whether or not it has ample citation.

 

I think this question is a little too broad, it depends on the nature of the inquiry. For professional, academic, or serious research, I use neither, and instead utilize peer-reviewed journal articles and internationally-accepted media networks like the BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, New York Times or Der Spiegel.

For quick or fun info, I'll use Wikipedia but I take it with a grain of salt. Wikinews sometimes has interesting independent journalism that escapes the eyes of larger media companies. I mostly use Google if I am looking for multiple perspectives or items of interest.

tl;dr: they both have their uses.

 

They serve different purposes and I use them accordingly. Wikipedia makes for an excellent source source, but isn't bad as a source itself either.

That said, I do in fact use DuckDuckGo rather than Google, as I don't like the way the latter tracks people and continues expanding, but I often do bang-searches for both !g (Google) and !w (Wikipedia).

 

For what it's worth, the search bar on my Firefox browser is Google.

 

Google . I do use wiki but it`s never reliable .

 

Google by far - looking at Wikipedia results delivered from Google, but taking with a grain of salt - i.e. unless I'm either already an expert (or at least knowledgeable) in something, I'll make sure to check the references listed in Wikipedia. Poorly cited articles are a *huge* red flag for me.

ETA: I work in technology. If you're looking for answers to coding questions, Google is the place to go. You'll find all sorts of technical documentation there.

I'm an open source contributor as well, so I don't like the previous posts that list the model as "inherently flawed". Heck, the board that you're posting this on runs on open source software. The world is a better place for both open source software and open content (ala Wikipedia).

Now, a lot of people on this site are a lot younger than I am, so I figure a fair warning is in order (that folks probably already knew) - if you write a paper and cite Wikipedia as a source, if I were the professor/instructor/teacher/whatever, I'd ceremoniously rip up the paper and throw it in the garbage (or incinerator if I had one available - you can remove it from the garbage!). Wikipedia is an excellent source to find sources, but it's not a primary source in and of itself.