# How much should wikipedia be trusted??



## Ruby Rue (Mar 21, 2008)

This may sound stupid, I'm aware that it's a site that is open to public editing (if thats the right way to put it). Being new to reptiles/amphibians I keep landing on it.
My point is that when trying to further knowledge on a pet/animal, is there anything that the masses have come across to disagree with on this site???
Like myhts/folklore things?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I wouldnt trust it at all, some stuff is right but you can never be sure.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

wouldn't say myths or anything but Wiki is pretty much public domain where anybody can put an entry in so you can't say for sure if the info is correct.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Take any advice you are given on the internet and even in person with a pinch of salt. everyone has different ways of doing things so the best thing to do is read as much info from different places as you can so you have a more well-informed opinion on sites like this one and wikipedia where anyone can post.: victory:


----------



## the-reptile-mafia (Jan 4, 2008)

I know most of it is crap cos whenever we get ict after schools we just sit and write crap on stuff about famnous people and other random stuff XD


----------



## Ruby Rue (Mar 21, 2008)

cool exactly what I was looking for cheers. I remember looking up oscars it said that they are largely regarded as sexually monomorphic but ask most people they can't tell the difference and I read somewhere else you got to take them out of the water and really have a good look at the bits. any how long and short that was miss leading.


----------



## HadesDragons (Jun 30, 2007)

Ruby Rue said:


> cool exactly what I was looking for cheers. I remember looking up oscars it said that they are largely regarded as sexually monomorphic but ask most people they can't tell the difference and I read somewhere else you got to take them out of the water and really have a good look at the bits. any how long and short that was miss leading.


Sexually *monomorphic* is where there is no difference between males and females, as you described for the oscars - literally "one form". The problem is that wikipedia doesn't have a monomorphy page, so directs you to the dimorphy page (where there is a difference) - easily confusing if you don't check titles etc.

A lot of the stuff on wikipedia is broadly correct, but I wouldn't truat anything it said as being absolute fact. It's nice for a bit of background on species (childish vandalism by people such as _the-reptile-mafia_ is, thankfully, spotted fairly quickly), but I'd recommend reading through caresheets rather than wikipedia to get an idea of how to look after them.


----------



## sami (Oct 23, 2006)

we're always told at college not to use it as reference, but it can be useful as a place to start with research. 

in genuine articles, they normally reference the work at the bottom, and you can follow those links to other websites, so it's a good place to start. 

Sami


----------



## Incubuss (Dec 19, 2006)

I dont trust it at all.


----------



## the-reptile-mafia (Jan 4, 2008)

HadesDragons i ment when i was in like year 7 mate XD


----------



## Iliria (Jan 19, 2007)

theres an article on there about antelope eating soup


----------



## SSamm (Mar 9, 2006)

Iliria said:


> theres an article on there about antelope eating soup


 
didnt you hear? they llove soup:lol2:

wikis crap tho


----------



## retri (Mar 5, 2008)

I dont like wiki full stop if I am totaly honest, it has the right info sometimes, but if I am researching a new pet or anything really, i prefer to visit a number of sights and compare them, this way you can usualy decifer what is fact and what is opinion or myth


----------

