Wikipedia

[anonshadow]

This came up in a thread in Religion and Moral Philosophy, but I didn't want to derail the thread further.

What do you think of Wikipedia? Do you think there are some forums in which it should not be used?

For my part, I think that Wikipedia is a terrific tool if you want information on a subject quickly without having to wade through a lot of technical terms to get it. There is no question that looking up "testicular cancer" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" will generally give you a good overview of the topic without forcing you to wade through the intricate sciences of cancer or the rabid fans of a show that include enough information to make a small novel.

I also think that it can be useful when you begin to seriously conduct research, especially for those who have trouble knowing where to begin.

I don't think that Wikipedia is a bad thing--quite the contrary. I certainly use it when I want information quickly and don't care much about the little details.

My issue begins when people begin to use it not to point people toward general information, or to find something quickly, but as a source--especially as a sole source.

Why?

Because, while I'm sure that the majority of the time the information you have will be accurate, it isn't subject to the same scrutiny that other things are subject to. Especially since Wikipedia often lists the sources used to obtain the information, if you're going to use something as anything but a casual overview, it seems to make sense to check out the source, especially before saying, "well, Wikipedia said it" when challenged.

Obvious spam will certainly be removed, but little typos are not always removed. There have been places where I have found things that were likely just small mistakes but changed the meaning of the information drastically (like $1.2 million instead of $12.8 million, or areas of immigration origination).

It is even likely that most errors are eventually corrected.

That doesn't make it all that wise to quote Wikipedia on an issue and have that be your primary or only source.

[Young Val]

I'm in the same boat. I like Wikipedia, it's a really great way to get a lot of concise information, and it often links up to a lot of its sources. For my own personal amusement, and for some quick basic info-gathering (to later be verified by "actual" sources). But would I use it as a main source for writing a research paper, or form solid opinions based solely on what it has to offer? Absolutely not.

In fact, I was pretty much cautioned in college to stay away from web sources as anything other than augmentation. Anyone can publish anything on the nets, accuracy be damned.

[v-girl]

I now use wiki more often than I use google. It is so much better for the kinds of things I tend to search for. I am now more likely to look up the answer to the random questions I get throughout the day.

I tend to look up medical and science things on wiki the most, and I've found most things to be accurate and not simplified too much.

[Hegemon]

We shouldn't be using for for school reports? Oh s***... for my last paper, i just wrote down a few links and said, "all you need to know can be found there"

Damn... wish you told me this sooner.

[neo-dragon]

I agree that it's not good to use wiki as a sole source for serious academic research, but I don't agree with the "treat wiki sources as garbage until proven otherwise" mentality, which some people have. Frankly I'm quite impressed with wikipedia. When I first heard about an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit I couldn't conceive of it even being coherent, let alone accurate and reliable. But I've come to realize that those who contribute to wiki generally take it quite seriously, and are quite fast to correct or remove the contributions of those who don't. When it comes to straight out facts, like the population of a country or the density of carbon, I trust wikipedia. Through out university, a number of my professors said that wikipedia is a valid source, although not an ideal one. Of course, that's what most professors say about the internet in general. Nothing will ever beat a reputable peer-reviewed journal in terms of reliability, but the use of alternative sources shouldn't be discouraged so long as they're used appropriately.

[Oliver Dale]

Wikipedia has no monopoly on mistakes. I have already found three errors in various peer-reviewed scientific journals while doing research for my next project. It happens everywhere.

Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information. That said, so is webMD.com, but I'd never use that website to diagnose disease. Everyone must exercise judgment and read critically when using information, regardless the source.

[Platypi007]

a month or two ago On Point on NPR was discussing this very topic. They had one of the creators of Wikipedia on there and a couple of other experts from some field or another to debate and of course took calls as they usually do.

I tend to think it is WONDERFUL, especialy for really obscure stuff that would be rather hard to find otherwise. But it shouldn't be used as the sole authority.

I don't think it is bad to use it as a source but like any source I think you should have another source to back it up.

I wouldn't trust any single source. I hardly fully trust five sources that agree, I always have some doubt.

[Qing_Jao]

I agree. It's a good starting point for things more academic. Maybe it can point you in a direction you hadn't thought of, or something. It could be used as A source, but not as the only source. Of course, most academic work requires multitudinous sources anyway. I heard a thing about how in spot comparisons, Wikipedia had the Encyclopaedia Britannica beaten. Of course they just looked at the condensed version of the articles for the EB, but still...

I don't use it much, because I don't do a lot of academic work nowdays. I do peek at it if I have no idea who a modern person is, and a goodgle/yahoo search doesn't turn up anything worthwhile.

[Epi]

I know I posted the 'world is going to end, the news is referencing Wikipedia' not too long ago in the old forum... but I have to admit I do use it a lot.

In fact I have used it to look up some pretty serious things, and it's came through every time.

[Eaquae Legit]

If a student ever handed in a paper to me with wikipedia as a source I would hand it back to them.

However, I like wikipedia a lot. I use it a lot for general info. Some topics it is a lot safer to check wikipedia than google. When I just want a general overview of a topic, I'm more likely to check wikipedia than a perr-reviewed journal. Wikipedia will have the general info I need, not the specialist info I'm not yet able to understand. It's great for getting ideas and casual info.

I just don't want to see it as serious research. I don't particularly want to see any encyclopedia on a paper I might get.

[Dr. Mobius]

Some topics it is a lot safer to check wikipedia than google.

Heh, half the time wiki is the top result or near the top of a google search anyways.

[pooka]

There are two areas where I would go to wiki. One is for items so obscure people aren't likely to be reading them often, like the Bohr effect. The other would be for entertainment, like learning about Norse mythology. I wouldn't count on it for historic or literary articles. Like, there was this weird statement in the 1984 article implying that Orwell intended it as an allegory to the Catholic church. I guess people who really want to believe communism is okay have to explain it somehow...

[Platypi007]

This article prooves that Wikipedia should be trusted as everyone's single source of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterre ... Spacecraft

[Jayelle]

That's hilarious. I love all the spelling errors.

[ratesjul]

The thing with using wikipedia as a source goes beyond the fact that it's not always reliable ... there's also the fact that, because it's all worked on by anyone who wants to, the data you see today and cite is not the data you see tomorrow. It's less static, and that has its good and bad points.

[lyons24000]

I like wikipedia and will continue to use it and quote it and reference it. Well, you understand.

[Platypi007]

The reasons very.


*giggles*