Bulbapedia?

Mew~

THE HOST IS BROKEN
    • 4,147
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Apr 13, 2016
    Ive noticed around the fourm that alot of people dont trust wikipedia because it gives false information and then they start recommending bulbapedia but then... looking at bulbapedia, isnt it basicly wikipedia, only for pokemon?

    My question is, Can you realy trust bulbapedia if you cant trust wikipedia?

    Sorry if i sound a bit dumb to people but i dont know that much about bulbapedia...
     
    I quite don't understand your question. If you are wondering whether Bulbapedia or Wikipedia is the most accurate source of useful pokemon information?
    If that's your question, then I would say Bulbapedia. While the concept is the same, Bulbapedia solely focuses on pokemon-related subjects. Wikipedia is probably not necessarily "non-accurate" in pokemon matters, but it's not as specialized as Bulbapedia is, IMO.
     
    ∞Opposite Day said:
    I quite don't understand your question. If you are wondering whether Bulbapedia or Wikipedia is the most accurate source of useful pokemon information?
    If that's your question, then I would say Bulbapedia. While the concept is the same, Bulbapedia solely focuses on pokemon-related subjects. Wikipedia is probably not necessarily "non-accurate" in pokemon matters, but it's not as specialized as Bulbapedia is, IMO.
    Click to expand...
    That wasnt realy my question...
    Alot of people (not just in this fourm) say wikipedia posts false info, and then recommend bulbapedia for real info. Bulbapedia is basicly a wikipedia but for pokemon. So can you realy trust bulbapedia?
     
    Ya, I'd say. I mean, the people behind Bulbapedia got pretty pissed off when some guy tried copying their info for commercial purposes - and it wouldn't make much sense if they got pissed because he copied false info, right? Bulbapedia is a credible source imo
     
    I personally think they are both trustworthy. People just don't trust it because anyone can post anything, but you can do the same thing in here, and yet I learned everything about rom hacking from here. What it amounts to is that it depends on who posts. If someone who knows what they're talking about posts, it'll be trustworthy, if they don't, then it won't be.
     
    In a way, it's a Pokemon-specific Wikipedia. But what makes a lot of people hesitant about Wikipedia is that not only can anyone edit it (like Bulbapedia, true), but it deals with a lot of subjective things and varying interpretations of the same subject. Bulbapedia deals mostly in statistics and solid facts taken directly from the games, anime, and manga, without any distortion by history or secondary sources. Also, it just deals with a game/manga & anime series instead of real life and is unlikely to be used for any serious research, so most people probably wouldn't be as worried about potential subjectivity as much as Wikipedia. :)
     
    Wikipedia is a massive, world-famous website that, with its fame, naturally attracts trolls, and with its size ends up with members that don't know much. And since it covers everything, there's no way any member can have knowledge in every area that Wikipedia covers. Therefore, Wikipedia attracts false information, both on purpose from trolls and by accident from the ignorant.

    Bulbapedia on the other hand is a much smaller community focusing on a very specific area - the Pokemon franchise. Trolls won't be drawn to it because they won't recieve nearly as much attention as on a larger site like Wikipedia, and any member is going to have knowledge of most, if not all of Bulbapedia's subject matter. Therefore Bulbapedia's information is on general more trustworthy and accurate.
     
    Bulbapedia is a wiki just like any other. So just like you can't take everything you read on literal face-value on Wikipedia because it's not a professional source (and can be edited by anyone), the same holds true for Bulbapedia. Of course, as a casual source of information, almost everything else pales in comparison on the internet.

    With Wikipedia, most people say you can't trust it as a source because it's so easy for anyone to edit... so if you're doing, say, an essay for school, it's bad to base all your writing on something you read on wiki because you have no idea if it's true or not. But... what on earth would you be using Bulbapedia for that requires it to be 100% true and untampered with facts? All I use it for is checking a moveset or how/when a Pokemon evolves, etc. o_O I mean, it might be wrong here and there, but I don't see how it's as serious as Wikipedia as far as trustworthiness goes.

    If you're super worried about it, only buy official printed media and use that. (Though even then, English guides are prone to typos and errors all the same.)
     
    I don't really trust ether but it's easier then trying to find an actual source.
     
    Bulbapedia is a sight centered around Pokémon, while Wikipedia centers around a veriety of matters. As it is true that they can both be edited, there are more reliable information found within Bulbapedia than there is at Wikipedia. They are both focal points for information yes, but they do differ in ways of given information. If you feel uncomfortable with relying on Bulbapedia alone then there are official sources and other resources that can provide you with information needed. This is why it is always important to not rely on one source alone, but open to other known and trusted information sites. You should also know what you're looking up, because on a site like Bulbapedia I use it for things such as moves and a few game or anime information. Though I do not only stick to this site as I use the official Pokémon site as well as Serebii.

    However, you must always keep open for possible mistakes as everything has its own errors here and there. Nothing is perfect, but there are things that you can rely on more than others.
     
    Although both have had mistakes I trust bulbapedia more. For the most part it has been a reliable source for me atleast. Like someone else said before me, you could get an offical guide. I did happen to get one and it was FULL of mistakes. It had a lot of typos and even some types for the pokemon were wrong. I find the best thing to do is check a couple sources. Perhaps a few online sources and a guide book if you really want to know a definite answer.
     
    Bulbapedia is more trusted because it get thorough searches for false information
     
    I trust Bulbapedia more because Wikipedia doesn't really have much information.
     
    look...
    Bulbapedia is wikipedia, but with pokemon
    and the reason why it's more accurate beacuse it's watched by pokefans all the time...
     
    I guess Bulbapedia is a little more accurate because there are less articles to actually check through.

    Wikipedia isn't even as bad as people make it out to be. >_> Teachers act like everything on Wikipedia must be inaccurate, but no.
     
    No matter what source of imformation you use or how well trusted it is, it's always good to apply common sense.

    Bulbapedia is a more reliable source to do Pokemon research on.
     
    I find bulbapedia fairly accurate for pokemon subjects.
     
    Whether to trust them or not is a complex issue

    I have had to fix many things on Bulbapedia as they were spreading false details

    They also just get things from others so you have to factor in that too (Example; PokéPark Wii page has been saying that you get the camera after beating attraction 2, which PocketMonsters said as a way to test if people steal. While you do get it afterwards, you get it a bit later when you speak to Misdreavus),

    It's a great concept, but the whole public factor ruins it. The non-higher ups are known to take from other sources (everything I posted during HGSS Coverage was posted within 10 hours, even things I made slight mistakes with), and it's also unreliable due to anyone editing it. If they made it a wiki that only certain people could edit (like their higher ups and people they trust), it would be an amazing resource. Nowadays though, it would be best to doublecheck a lot of things from there. Main things like level up stuff there are right, but you never know where things are wrong

    That said, my site's not exactly perfect, I've had to fix my share of things
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top