plarq
Crazy forever
It's not reliable, I can't access it!
And when I access it, I read it for entertainment and knowledge build-up.
And when I access it, I read it for entertainment and knowledge build-up.
Wikipedia: Good Source or... Not
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
gmanne:
I understand exactly what you are saying, and I completely agree. However, I still don't see why they don't publish articles for free after they have been rigorously peer-reviewed and determined not to be complete bunk. Let me give you an example.
Recently, I was doing work on the fall of Rome and the Hunnic invasions. I found it very frustrating that I could not access the same article (over a decade old), from the same service (which will remain nameless...), and by the same author, from my computer at home instead of at the library. Why is it that when I enter a public or university library I am suddenly a "scholar," with every right to access any and all materials on the web, but when I am at home, I am simply John Q. Public, who has no rights?
Another irony: Why is the history buff who is sitting on his back porch, reading about the Second Punic War on his laptop, and genuinely interested, somehow less entitled than an engineering student who has to do a report on Hannibal for his history class but couldn't care less? It's absurd on the face of it. These collections of online articles were designed for people who are actively interested in reading and using them!
Yes, there is one other big issue: that of site maintenance. Somebody has to do all this, and that takes time, effort and money. This is a fair objection, but there are still other ways to get around it. Look at everything CFC offers; it's free. You're telling me that someone with a Ph.D. couldn't figure out a way to do it for free also? Look at Wikipedia; they take donations, just like all philanthropic endeavors. You don't think people wouldn't donate to a similar, reputable site? (Purely rhetorical questions, not taking a shot at you.)
So my conclusion is yes, these guys could figure out a way to make legitimate articles free... but they don't want to. Please tell me where I'm going wrong.
I understand exactly what you are saying, and I completely agree. However, I still don't see why they don't publish articles for free after they have been rigorously peer-reviewed and determined not to be complete bunk. Let me give you an example.
Recently, I was doing work on the fall of Rome and the Hunnic invasions. I found it very frustrating that I could not access the same article (over a decade old), from the same service (which will remain nameless...), and by the same author, from my computer at home instead of at the library. Why is it that when I enter a public or university library I am suddenly a "scholar," with every right to access any and all materials on the web, but when I am at home, I am simply John Q. Public, who has no rights?
Another irony: Why is the history buff who is sitting on his back porch, reading about the Second Punic War on his laptop, and genuinely interested, somehow less entitled than an engineering student who has to do a report on Hannibal for his history class but couldn't care less? It's absurd on the face of it. These collections of online articles were designed for people who are actively interested in reading and using them!
Yes, there is one other big issue: that of site maintenance. Somebody has to do all this, and that takes time, effort and money. This is a fair objection, but there are still other ways to get around it. Look at everything CFC offers; it's free. You're telling me that someone with a Ph.D. couldn't figure out a way to do it for free also? Look at Wikipedia; they take donations, just like all philanthropic endeavors. You don't think people wouldn't donate to a similar, reputable site? (Purely rhetorical questions, not taking a shot at you.)
So my conclusion is yes, these guys could figure out a way to make legitimate articles free... but they don't want to. Please tell me where I'm going wrong.
Gaius Octavius:
You questions are good ones. It works the way it does, and I can only speak for New South Wales here in Australia, because some of these organisations licence their services out to universities, libraries and the like for a considerable fee. So if you are not in one of those institutions you are simply not eligible to access their services. Also, their are copyright issues. Once an article is published there are all sorts of legal issues concerning ownership of the now printed material. I am not a laywer, but all I know is that once a journal publishes an article it is no longer mine to use freely. The material (IP) is mine, but the article itself is theirs.
Which is the main problem. Academics have to publish to prosper, at least here in OZ. University funding here depends to a large extent on research output, but that research must be published in a recognised journal for it to count. Consequently, academics are strongly encouraged (read: 'if you want to keep your jobs') to publish in these journals - and publish often. And since an article can only be published once you can see why they do not end up on an internet discussion board.
However, I think this sort of system is on its way out. I forsee journals eventually being replaced by a type of on-line academic co-operative that will garnish the same respect that academic journals do today. It may take a while, but it will happen.
You questions are good ones. It works the way it does, and I can only speak for New South Wales here in Australia, because some of these organisations licence their services out to universities, libraries and the like for a considerable fee. So if you are not in one of those institutions you are simply not eligible to access their services. Also, their are copyright issues. Once an article is published there are all sorts of legal issues concerning ownership of the now printed material. I am not a laywer, but all I know is that once a journal publishes an article it is no longer mine to use freely. The material (IP) is mine, but the article itself is theirs.
Which is the main problem. Academics have to publish to prosper, at least here in OZ. University funding here depends to a large extent on research output, but that research must be published in a recognised journal for it to count. Consequently, academics are strongly encouraged (read: 'if you want to keep your jobs') to publish in these journals - and publish often. And since an article can only be published once you can see why they do not end up on an internet discussion board.
However, I think this sort of system is on its way out. I forsee journals eventually being replaced by a type of on-line academic co-operative that will garnish the same respect that academic journals do today. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Fixed:
The bottom line is that if you use an encyclopedia for a research paper for school, the instructor will laugh at you.
An encyclopedia is not intended as a primary or secondary source. Wikipedia explicitly states that it does not allow "original research".
Well that goes for any source - I hope you always doublecheck information.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Some people here are overestimating the quality of school instructors.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
I like Wiki, it's fairly comprehensive most of the time, and it's frequently checked by people who actually know the subject... they are allowed to modify it if it's wrong. Plus I don't have to pay extra to use it. I did the brittanica home page once but I couldn't justify the cost since I am not a researcher or in school where the stuff would be useful for more than just satisfying curiosity.
Knowledge is never free, but it's good when someone else pays for it, like in a university library.
edit- actually your tuition give you access, so I guess it's not completely paid for by the university.
edit2-Whether there is knowledge in a wiki or just information is hit or miss. Whether it is reliable is not really an issue. If you are researching, you will follow the sources back to the original works or as close as you can get. If you are not researching, you wouldn't need to know if they are telling you the truth anyway, unless you are making real decisions from what's on the screen of course. In that case, you really should be spending time researching anyway.
Knowledge is never free, but it's good when someone else pays for it, like in a university library.
edit- actually your tuition give you access, so I guess it's not completely paid for by the university.
edit2-Whether there is knowledge in a wiki or just information is hit or miss. Whether it is reliable is not really an issue. If you are researching, you will follow the sources back to the original works or as close as you can get. If you are not researching, you wouldn't need to know if they are telling you the truth anyway, unless you are making real decisions from what's on the screen of course. In that case, you really should be spending time researching anyway.
There is lots of information that is not controversial, sports, science, movies etc. Wikipedia is great for that.
I think the concept is terrific. Of course it can't really be considered an authority, but that's just a side effect of being able to grow so much.
I think the concept is terrific. Of course it can't really be considered an authority, but that's just a side effect of being able to grow so much.
Last edited:
, but at least I can provide the link to the site: 
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it has encyclopedic pages on all sorts of non-encyclopedic stuff. If you want to read about the Boer War, there are plenty of other sources, but where else can you learn all there is to learn about Knuckles the Echidna?
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
It's a good experiment in communal knowledge, but you should ALWAYS check the sources when using information for it.
As a university bio TA, it really pains me to see students citing wiki on reports. They usually get a big red line through it...
As a university bio TA, it really pains me to see students citing wiki on reports. They usually get a big red line through it...
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
And "random article" is a lot more fun than just flipping pages and deciding to stop.
I consider it a good, reliable source. I wouldn't cite it as a source, but I'd certainly use it to learn about a subject, do preliminary research, or fact-checking. If I don't know about something, I've found Wikipedia to be more reliable than the average Google result, and more up-to-date than the encyclopedia I have. It also is relatively easy to understand, a huge plus when my pre-existing knowledge base for something is near nil. And when objectivity is questionable, the article is usually flagged for possible bias. I've found it to be reliable enough.
And the links to external sites at the bottom and in-text is a great resource for when you do need someplace to cite the work from.
And the links to external sites at the bottom and in-text is a great resource for when you do need someplace to cite the work from.
Similar threads
- Poll
