No. Wikipedia is not unreliable. It is a service that provides free information across 500 million people a month. People CAN get in and edit information. Most of the time the information is accurate and when it is inaccurate, others change it pretty quickly.
Wikipedia can sometimes mislead readers because anybody can put information on that website.
To be honest, Wikipedia could be considered as an (quote on quote) "Unreliable Resource" of information, but it is said the she was with the Alpha Kappa Alpha...
Answers that are directly copied from Wikipedia or other sites are considered plagiarism. WikiAnswers does not tolerate plagiarism as it not in accordance with WikiAnswers plagiarism policy.If you find a plagiarized answer, contact a WikiAnswers supervisor, or report it in the Community Forum.
Unreliable is the correct spelling.
Unreliable means not guaranteed. In term of data communication unreliable stands when the delivery of data is unacknowledged.
they are unreliable because there old.
It's not in my blood to be unreliable.
His loyalty can rightfully be described as unreliable.
The sad truth is that you don't. Wikipedia averages 4 mistakes per page, therefore is an unreliable source of information. But that doesn't mean that most of the info is wrong. Just be aware of using Wikipedia on reports etc. You can always trust a textbook.
People say that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because anyone can change what it says, however, if moderators catch someone making a stupid edit, they will return the text to it's original so Wikipedia is a reliable source.
Scientific data that has not been experimentally tested is unreliable.
There not unreliable BMW is the most reliable then VW,Audi then mercedes and the only one thats unreliable is OPEL