Lately, there’s been a lot od discussion on whether or not Wickedpedia is reliable. Let me put it loud and clear: IT’S NOT.
If you have anything to say about that evil wiki, then feel free to talk about it here, since it was previously getting off-topic on other threads. 
Well, Wikipedia is open. Pixar Planet should elect a bunch of people who will register and periodically correct the mistakes and it’s done, isn’t it? Magically Wikipedia becomes reliable about Pixar topics 
Ya know, I was indifferent to it but I’ll just say I like it 'cause you don’t. 
Silly to hate it anyways - if you hate it so much you should know better to just ignore it, geez … you sound like a psycho for hating it as if it were Miley Cyrus.
A113: Lets make something perfectly clear. I agree with you that wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is because it can be edited by anyone who so freely chooses. BUt what you seem to miss is that the information on wikipedia is pretty much up to date. I believe rarely one would come across the wrong info. And even if one does, it would later on be corrected.
Personally, I think your lashing at wikipedia is really childish. There isn’t anything wrong with it. It hasn’t done anything harmful to anyone. All it is is just an information site where people may look up certain articles about people, movies, objects, ideas, and even more things. Now granted, while I said that wikipedia isn’t reliable, there are indeed other more and better reliable sources out there. But while a couple more sites can be counted on, does that mean you should chew wikipedia up and spit it out, only to do it over and over again? I think it doesn’t. Wikepedia hasn’t done anything bad to you hasn’t it? If you got nothing nice to say, then don’t say it at all. All I can tell you is grow up and be a little mature.
To wrap up my thoughts, wikipedia isn’t a really bad site. I actually like it. I would look something up on it, get my info, then relook it up again on ther sites that have more reliability. I have to tell you is that 99.9% of the time, the info I find on wiki and other sites are the same. SO this Wickedpedia (by the way, if you are going to name something, at least name it right A113) is not really wicked after all!
Elikrotupos: That’s a good idea. I’ll volunteer.
FONY: LOL! That’s okay, I do tend to push it a bit. But using it as a news source is bad.
TSS: Do you remember when it tricked most us into thinking Remy’s name was Ratatouille? And Emile’s name was Rollie? And when they said that Up would be about Don Quixote? Even PV got tricked by it. That’s why it’s so bad. They might not do it intentionally, but the Wikipedia Monster has gotten to many.
My point is, do not trust Wikipedia as your news source or the Wikipedia Monster will get you. (Poor RMSH)
So, Wikipedia is not reliable, but every other website is? Clearly.
There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia. Yes, the information can be changed by pretty much anyone. That’s the whole POINT of Wikipedia.
If you have a problem with it, don’t use it as a source of information. I, on the other hand, have found Wikipedia very useful with stuff that is known as fact- NOT for things like release dates for films. For example, Wikipedia was very helpful in terms of a Physics project that I was doing. But for stuff that’s purely speculation, well, no, it might not be as accurate. On the other hand, some people know information that others don’t. Wikipedia gives them a chance to tell people about this information without setting up a website of their own.
In short:
If you want to use Wikipedia, use it. If you don’t, don’t. It really isn’t that difficult.
Just DON’T go telling other people that Wikipedia is the spawn of the devil or whatever, because it’s just a website. Get over it.
And you blame the general wikipedia site for wrong info? Everyone gets confused at times and wrong info gets put on it. Which is why later on in life, the reight info will come. They always do.
And you can trust wikipedia for info, only if you can confirm it with other sites. But you got ot admit that most of the info on there is upto date and correct.
I don’t even trust the local news paper as a news source!
False information comes from anywhere and everywhere. There are no ‘tricks’ on Wikipedia. It’s just people telling other people what they know, or their speculations. The point is that no-one knew Remy’s name at the time, and I for one don’t trust ANY website that speculates about a film I’ve seen it myself, or at least until the film is released and others can confirm it.
Couldn’t have said it better. 
But at least do you hear and understand what lizardgirl, FONY and I are saying?
LOL! I say, look at the PageRank. But then again, Uncyclopedia’s got a high PageRank, too, so that wouldn’t work, either. I guess you just have to use trustworthys ources. Maybe by checking for references on a Wikipedia page? That would be great. Also, Google’s search results often have true information at the top of their list, but not always. (lol “miserable failure”)
The general rule with Wikipedia is that you never use it for information that people will care about. You would have to be a fool to use it to write a research paper or a literary analysis. Most teachers and professors won’t accept it and you’ll probably get it back with a giant red F.
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia to get some quick information on an actor, movie, event you didn’t know about, etc. Wikipedia shouldn’t be boycotted or banned (and I know that’s not what you’re saying, A113). It’s essentially just as reliable, if not more, than any writer. You have to be extremely clever in your writing style to pass on false information without alerting either the bots or the watchful eyes of the Recent Changes bodyguards.
My two cents, don’t stone me
I love Wikipedia in the sense that - I easily edited a page and placed my related website, and now it helps for more people to find it. In that sense, it’s really helpful.
I like this idea. I’ll bring it up.
Well, by its own admission, Wikipedia is the online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - this is both its strength and weakness. Just imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have Wikipedia - you would have to trawl through numerous websites to get the information you want. But an online encyclopedia provides a concise, easy-to-read summary of basically any topic you can think of. Great for children wanting to know more about the world, or someone doing a school project.
And the fact that anyone can edit it - yeah, so what? If the information is wrong, it gets changed and revised eventually, some articles quicker than others, I admit, and if you are wary about trusting Wikipedia then take everything it says with a grain of salt and go and research disputed information somewhere else. Or don’t use the website at all. It’s your loss. Everything that is written on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, that is, backed up somewhere else outside of the website itself. (Kind of like science, really, but I won’t go into that…)
My main concern is the exact opposite: when the Wikipedia admins start making restrictions on who can edit, and what pages can be edited, because this goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.
And now that you have made your own thread about it, please A113, I beg you, please stop bringing it up in the other threads. It disrupts the conversation because it makes it go off-topic (which encourages other certain members to go off topic, too). We’ve told you to stop numerous times.You’ve made your point. Even the most casual visitor to Pixar Planet knows your opinion on Wikipedia by now. 
I didn’t know about it.
I think Wikipedia is a mixed bag, but it was the first place to have any real info on WALL-E (the story according to the trailer, a picture, simple stuff like that), and it didn’t turn out wrong.
Pixelated: Well, if there’s no reference for something you find on Wikipedia, don’t trust it. I thought that the question mark guy died early, and nearly sent his family a card! Then i found out , almost too late, that it was a hoax.
Rachel: That’s the very reason i started this thread.
Netbug009: Actually, it wasn’t the first place. All info on Wikipedia, if the truth, has to start somewhere.
Wikipedia is for people who will take information for granted just so they can let someone do all the research for them (aka lazy bums XD). There’s a good reason schools have banned using it for research; because Wikipedia’s known for making mistakes.
And you have to face it, Wikipedia is communism.
Trusting Wikipedia is like buying into those 419 scams, except the scammers are doing it by accident.
It’s the Wikipedia Monster! AAAAAAAAA!
True, it did have to come from somewhere, but Wiki brought the info into the light, at least for me, and I can’t recall any of it that was proven wrong.
But yeah, a mixed bag indeed. It usually is pretty trustworthy for cartoon info tho. Again, at least for me.
For me, some of my teachers (even AP teachers) allow us to use wikipedia to look up information, but that can not be a souce, but they told us to use wiki as like a little stepping stone. And dispite mistakes, it eventually is corrected.