Masquerouge
Deity
I like it. The topics that interest me (science, history, etc.) are usually not prone to abuse (who's gonna make a prank on molecular chirality?), but when I use it for political topics I'm much more careful.
Wikipedia: Good Source or... Not
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
It's not a source at all. If you cite Wikipedia for anything that matters, you've just demolished your credibility.
But it's excellent to go figure out in ten seconds what's special about James Garfield, or some other trivia. Or just browsing some curiosities.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
I approve of it. The great thing is, if you're not sure of something, check it the next day. It should be gone or edited 
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I think people are misunderstanding what I said. I voted "unreliable" and "I disapprove." What I disapprove of is the 'anyone can edit anything' feature, not the free aspect. That's what makes it unreliable. I said that I think it's popular among college students and young people more so because it's free than because you can edit it.
On the other note, general encyclopedia articles SHOULD NOT be a priced commodity. However, detailed research, individual and unique research papers, like theses, investigative history books hot off the presses, and the like, are fair game. But if I want to find more specific information on, say, the Second Punic War, more than, "Oh, it was fought from 218 to 201 between Rome and Carthage," then I should not have to pay for it. It's nice that things like the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition are in the public domain, but anything after then, and you're basically screwed.
I swear, sometimes scholars can be the most hypocritical people on the face of the earth. They're like, "oh, we're scientists and academics, we share all our work without regard to national or political boundaries for the betterment of mankind and the advancement of knowledge." Great! Just subscribe to JSTOR now for a low price of $99.95 per visit and gain access to everything! It's a power thing, like everything else...
Tomoyo
Fate
It's reliable, but I disapprove of using it as a source. Wikipedia is as much a source as Google is. All (good) articles on Wikipedia cite their sources, and if you need to cite a source, you should use those sources instead.
I completely agree. I feel the same for research papers - there is absolutely no reason why research should not be available to all. Well, assuming that it's not classified, of course.
as a computer programmer i use wikipedia ocassionally for its technical articles, which are invaluable and rock solid. and in the technical world, there is no room for subjectivity, so reliability and objectivity are not issues. it states the facts plain and simple. and I can verify the info pretty easily.
but really, it is a great vast repository of knowledge even for the other stuff. i use it to look up stuff on lord of the rings, world war II, my favorite computer games, ancient warfare, the list is endless.
cons to wiki:
if you are actually trying to write an article, it sucks, because ppl will edit you arbitrarily
as for the anyone can edit stuff - they have mods who basically will detect all changes made to articles, and remove vandalism. besides, it would be irresponsible not to verify your findings now wouldn't it?
but really, it is a great vast repository of knowledge even for the other stuff. i use it to look up stuff on lord of the rings, world war II, my favorite computer games, ancient warfare, the list is endless.
cons to wiki:
if you are actually trying to write an article, it sucks, because ppl will edit you arbitrarily
as for the anyone can edit stuff - they have mods who basically will detect all changes made to articles, and remove vandalism. besides, it would be irresponsible not to verify your findings now wouldn't it?
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
The CFC page on Wiki is kind of interesting... 
I'm supposed to have access to research papers. However for some reasons, I can't get the research papers on the Web of Knowledge, even though I have an account. Some sites are free. ScienceDirect has been helpful but most papers I can't get hold of and can't reference them :\
I just wish that people looked at all the other sources with the same critical standard that Wikipedia seems to be held to... instead we have this weird situation where Wikipedia is assumed to be wrong all the time, whilst anything on a random webpage or spouted by the media must be true.
You shouldn't be citing Britannica either. See what I mean? No one critices Britannica because "it's only good for a starting point, and shouldn't be cited in a paper".
It says that it's an encyclopedia.
You shouldn't be citing Britannica either. See what I mean? No one critices Britannica because "it's only good for a starting point, and shouldn't be cited in a paper".
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Wikipedia is an excellent starting point to get a general idea about a subject. After you get the gist, you scroll to the bottom of the page, and look at the sources. Then you read those sources. If it doesn't have sources, then you forget what you just read in the article.
It's a tertiary source - just like any other encyclopedia.
Outside of the science articles, it's a pretty bad tertiary source.
Unless the page follows WP:ARB, it's going to get deleted the moment someone puts it up to vote again...
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Well, that would be no great loss, I guess.
Compared to what, and based on what reasoning?
Yes, and no. Most, if not all, journal articles are free - if you can find a library that stocks the journal you are interested in that is. What you are really paying for is the convenience of reading the latest articles while sitting in your office or lounge room. Today we also have access to an enormous range of published academic material that 10 years ago would have cost the price of several dozen annual subscriptions. Finally, it is the journals themselves that charge, (or online repositories like JSTOR), not academics. I can not say for certain, but in my line of work, at least, we get no fiscal reward for having an article published.
So why don't most academics just 'publish' online for free and let everyone have access for the same? Because journal articles are refereed by their academic peers, all of which have something to lose if they let a bad article go through. Therefore, having something published in a refereed journal means your work has a certain academic value. Basically, journals, and academics, live and die by their reputations. As such, both have an enormous investment in the information they distribute.
WIKI contributors do not.
The bottom line is that if you use Wikipedia for a research paper for school, the instructor will laugh at you.
I don't like Wiki, but for some "quick facts" I want to check on my own, it's fine, but I always double check because sometimes the information is simply wrong.
You can't argue with this because some articles may be right, and some may be wrong.
I don't like Wiki, but for some "quick facts" I want to check on my own, it's fine, but I always double check because sometimes the information is simply wrong.
You can't argue with this because some articles may be right, and some may be wrong.
Similar threads
- Poll
