How do you check your facts?

[toupeiro]

It seems most people, not just on this forum but in general, use wikipedia as the "according to Hoyle" facts about any topic of interest they are focused on, even if they might have had 0%-2% subject matter knowledge on the subject prior to that point. Other people use a few different sources to correlate the information as a fact, and some people have hands-on experience that they use solely, or in correlation with other online, printed, or televised sources.

Whats your poison for determining "facts" as you know them, before you decide to show others what you know, (or think you know. ;) )

Cheers!

[KiwiNZ]

I use multiple sources , Wikipedia is not reliable , but a average start point nothing more though.

[wojox]

Multiple sources here. I find reading as many different books/manuals on the subject helps.

[TNT1]

I'm married...

[Bachstelze]

Obviously depends on the subject. If I have forgotten the exact expression of the integral form of Taylor's theorem, Wikipedia is certainly very reliable.

[toupeiro]

I'm married...

So am I, with a 5 month old child that I spend as much time with as possible. Should that make me less diligent if I have something of interest to talk about, and elect to talk about it?

[Phrea]

I get all my facts from Cliff Clavin.

He's the smartest man I know.

[toupeiro]

I get all my facts from Cliff Clavin.

He's the smartest man I know.

epic! :lolflag:

I wish I would have made that a poll option now.

[Strategist01]

I generally use Wikipedia - it gives a nice overview and is usually correct. If I really want the facts, then I'll go and look harder around the web...

[koenn]

I usually just go by 'if it sounds good, it must be true'.

[TNT1]

So am I, with a 5 month old child that I spend as much time with as possible. Should that make me less diligent if I have something of interest to talk about, and elect to talk about it?

No, it means my wife knows everything;)

[andymorton]

Usually peer-reviewed journals.

[Simian Man]

It's a question of what the "fact" is. If it's a basic curiosity, something that my livelihood and safety don't depend on, then the wiki is good enough for me. If it's something important, obviously not.

[jshepherd]

Sometimes start with Wikipedia (it's often near the top of Google search page anyway) and if need be dig deeper I'll check with more 'trusted' sources.

[RiceMonster]

Uncyclopedia (uncyclopedia.org)

[chris200x9]

no one mentioned snopes yet?

[bug67]

I look on the interwebz. I believe everything I see there. http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/jump.gif

[Naiki Muliaina]

4 chan. I think its a reliable source.... >.>

[wilee-nilee]

If it is something based on scientific inquiry I use the world wide library data base from my college, you know that nasty peer reviewed...etc stuff. NPR is good and many other areas, you just have to separate your own bias from the others to get a good projection.

[Linye]

I don't get in any discussion if I'm not at least 90% sure of what I'm talking. Then I start looking for facts.

Most of those discussions are about video games or mma.

[toupeiro]

No, it means my wife knows everything;)

LOL! (as in a real laugh out loud!) I haven't said I've been married long (going on 2 years), but long enough to start to realize this fact myself. :P

[Frak]

Google. It knows everything.

[TNT1]

I look on the interwebz. I believe everything I see there. http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/jump.gif


Google. It knows everything.

But I thought the google was the internet:o

[mc4man]

logical T&E

[chessnerd]

This user trusts Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

If I'm shaky on it, I will check to see if the article is a good or featured one. If so, I'm pretty confident that it's right.

For school, I may start at Wikipedia, but have only ever used it as a source in two cases:

1. A teacher in high school said we could use Wikipedia articles rated B or higher as sources, so I did.
2. I wrote a college paper on the reliability of Wikipedia, and sited its internal articles on Wikipedia policy.

I find that Wikipedia is generally quite accurate. When it is wrong, it is usually blatantly wrong (due to vandalism). That college paper I wrote received an A, so my argument in that regard must have been at least moderately convincing.

[V for Vincent]

Wikipedia is good for a lot of subjects, so I do tend to use it a lot. For instance, when something is only briefly touched upon in a textbook and I can't get it. Obviously, that way I know whether it's correct if it agrees with what's in my book.

Other than that, our university department has an insanely good library. If I've got an excuse to go there, I'll use it.

[Khakilang]

I'm married...

I'm divorced.

[Denis Krajnc]

Wikipedia is one of the most reliable.

[lisati]

Some of our number might have their doubts about the trustworthiness of Wikipedia, but at least it's a start.

I'm married...
:D In about two months, it will be our 18th anniversary. When Mrs Lisati speaks, I had better listen!

[23meg]

I check my facts by throwing them at whatever the most relevant, smartest, least noisy remaining online community related to the facts at hand is, and watching people tear them apart.

[red_Marvin]

I ponder the question during my morning routine where I shave with Occam's razor.

[jrusso2]

A recent study I read showed Wikipedia to be as reliable as the top rated encyclopedia Britannica

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[koenn]

A recent study I read showed Wikipedia to be as reliable as the top rated encyclopedia Britannica

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

err ..
that article says that a study shows that
1- there are errors, omissions and misleading statements in encyclopedia Britannica

2- there are more errors, omissions and misleading statements in Wikipedia than in encyclopedia Britannica



@OP
apparently, it's not just about checking facts, it"s also about how you interprete them
:)

[drawkcab]

At one extreme, Wikipedia is a great source for things like pop culture, entertainment and basic tech info, at the other, a horrible source of information for academic subjects.

I was checking out Wikipedia's entry on Plato last week, the sections on Plato's theory of the forms and theory of the state in particular. The problem is that Plato had no theories on either the forms or the state. Anyone who has read any Platonic dialogues knows that Plato says nothing, that Socrates does all the talking. Furthermore, in the Republic and the Phaedo, the theory of the state and the theory of the forms are presented ironically by Socrates, as hypotheses which are either dialectically or practically impossible.

What you get in that Wikipedia entry is a warmed-over version of CliffNotes/Sparknotes, summaries that were written by beleaguered graduate students in need of extra cash years and years ago. If a student tries to write a paper based on that entry, they are likely to be failed by their professor who is familiar with the material and the last fifty years of scholarship on Plato.

[TNT1]

I ponder the question during my morning routine where I shave with Occam's razor.

I ponder whilst feeding Schrodinger's cat...

[TNT1]

Some of our number might have their doubts about the trustworthiness of Wikipedia, but at least it's a start.

:D In about two months, it will be our 18th anniversary. When Mrs Lisati speaks, I had better listen!

Nice. I got seven years last month:D

[koenn]

I ponder whilst feeding Schrodinger's cat...

how is she ? still alive and all that ?

[TNT1]

how is she ? still alive and all that ?

100% alive... No, wait, 100% dead... No, wait, guess I'll have to open the bag and check:o

[scouser73]

I Google for checking facts, and don't stick to just one source of information but usually check about ten search results and then filter the information to suit my needs.