General Question

flo's avatar

What is the alternative to Wikipedia, (but not where just anyone can edit) that you have good experience with?

Asked by flo (11472points) February 18th, 2010

Thanks in advance.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

Sarcasm’s answer is a good start.I’d get my info from a drunk in a bar before I’d go to Wiki ;))

jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities's avatar

Other than @~‘s answer, you should try some peer-reviewed academic journals.

YARNLADY's avatar

I don’t get how there could be an alternative to wikipedia that does not use peer contributions. The opposite of peer contributions is the fixed encyclopedia, such as Britannica, or Maybe you mean like, which starts from sources such as WikiAnswers, and then is transferred into a non-editable form.

laureth's avatar

It really depends on the subject you’re wanting to learn more about. Some of the very best sites are definitive sites for one subject. The Mayo Clinic site, for example, has good information about health and medicine, whereas TreasuryDirect is the best site for information about the financial situation in the United States. It’s a little harder than just looking things up in a general reference, but my solution has been to keep a bookmark folder filled with definitive sites that answer the sorts of questions I ask most often.

Sarcasm's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille I know that people are generally douchebags, but information on wikipedia is generally pretty damn trustable. For every asshole who puts up some misinformation, there are 5 supernerds who are alerted about it and go forth to correct it. You’re really missing out on a lot of information if you’re avoiding wikipedia.
That comment goes to you too, @flo, if that’s the reason you’re avoiding wikipedia.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@Sarcasm -Can’t make me do it ;)

faye's avatar

I like Wiki, for no researched reason.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Wiki is not reliable because there is no means of control involved.
I’d recommend your local library’s resources. Your teachers will recognize the extra effort of actually leaving your home to do research.
Most teachers will dismiss wiki as a research resource. It’s a really bad habit of students today.

StephK's avatar

The library is generally one of my favorite research hang outs, too. :)

But as for online things, the open directory project is always helpful for finding websites on various kinds of information. It’s a compilation of different perspectives, but no one can edit anyone else’s work so you know what’s coming from who.

Sarcasm's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy Sure, there’s no means of control. Aside from other users. And moderators. And bans. And article locks. Other than that, yeah, it’s just an ocean of piss.

jlm11f's avatar

The world is in for serious trouble if wiki is that unreliable. Since every med student I know gets their education from that site.

YARNLADY's avatar

Wikipedia is as reliable as the volunteer moderators, editors and references. I find the leads to other articles to be better than Google much of the time.

phoenyx's avatar


Also, most articles in wikipedia have their citations listed at the bottom. If you don’t trust the article, look at the sources it draws from.

flo's avatar

Everyone, Thanks a lot.
@phoenyx I see that you can edit, in Scholarpedia.

phoenyx's avatar

But “not just anyone” can edit it. From their main page:

However, Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:

- Each article is written by an expert (elected by the public or invited by Scholarpedia editors).
- Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
- Each article has a curator—typically its author—who is responsible for its content.
- Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.

Herein also lies the greatest difference between Scholarpedia and traditional print media: although the initial authorship and review are similar to a print journal so that Scholarpedia articles could be cited, articles are not frozen and outdated, but dynamic, subject to an ongoing process of improvement moderated by their curators. This allows Scholarpedia to be up-to-date, yet maintain the highest quality of content.

flo's avatar

@phoenyx Thanks. I appreciate the info.

Grisaille's avatar

@phoenyx Dude, scholarpedia is awesome. I lost 2 hours last night just browsing. Thanks for that, man.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther