The Question of Wikipedia

[Ashurbanipal]

I have noticed as I read through this site, that many people are asking questions about specific authors and asking for good places to get information. Places that are not Wikipedia. The reasons they cannot use Wikipedia is that "the teacher does not allow it".
I know we have many teachers here, and I know we have many students. I would just like to see what people think about the modern encyclopedia.

In defense of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a compendium of all our knowledge with a bit of hitchhikers guide thrown in. The understandable aversion to using such a page is easily abated with a simple scroll down to the bottom of the page where a treasure trove of primary sources resides. Wikipedia relies upon the nature of the internet itself; publish something incorrect, and someone will correct it, someone will demand more sources. The internet is based on arguing, from the earliest alt.____ to the forums of today, all it is is arguing and proving points. The problem is, of course that anyone can edit it, but I don't think this means that there are roving bands of wiki-hooligans putting subtly incorrect facts out their for the student populace to cite in their hurriedly written research papers.
This does not take in to account the wiki-nerd, the man who enjoys correcting facts and citing sources, these noble creatures scour Wikipedia just looking for incorrect dates, poorly captioned pictures, or terror of terrors images that are not on the site, but should be. Some of these are moderators themselves, some of them are volunteers. These heroes keep the internet working, and keep the data flowing.
That being said, should people use Wikipedia as a primary source? No. But neither should one use any encyclopedia as a primary source (except of course for definitions etc. which I say is perfectly permissible, people can submit definitions to dictionary.com, that is valid)
I would say that Wikipedia is a force for good, an encyclopedia that fits the times, constantly morphing as new information comes to light, always changing, entertaining and full of links that send the user to the less oft-visited areas of our world wide web.

[JBI]

I hear the science stuff is good, but the literary stuff is a joke. The grammar is rubbish, which alone warrants Wikipedia mediocre.

I think Wikipedia, as a form of scholarship, teaches people that Wikipedia quality scholarship is acceptable. It isn't; Wikipedia is rubbish. Quite simply put, it isn't a scholarly source, and that isn't even a question. There are no dissenting opinions on most pages, and there isn't a quality of scholarship.

For instance, the sources Wikipedia sites are often sources without scholarship - nothing peer edited. Often the links too lead to bizarre places, not to sources.

Seriously, people should just learn to look in books - the internet, unless you are using real databases, is often rubbish.

[Etienne]

I like Wikipedia, actually. I only use it to look random unimportant informations though. But I often correct grammar errors too on that website, and often find ridiculous pieces of information, badly written texts, etc. I think the thing is among the best inventions of internet though.

Seriously, people should just learn to look in books - the internet, unless you are using real databases, is often rubbish.

Say I am reading a novel, and the setting involves some early century Mexican revolution. I can just click there and get the big picture and then go on with my novel.

Say, I am reading a novel and want to know something about the author, what are his other works, etc. Kind of what you would get in a preface that is inexistent in our case, isn't wikipedia, then, very nice?

[Tallon]

My lecturers always told us not to use it, but then admitted it that they use it themselves for some general perspective. I think it is useful for that, especially as i was a history student and most books are on a specific aspect of historiography.

It is great fun to look up random stuff and then follow the links, you find yourself at 2am reading about velocipedes.

[Bitterfly]

I use wikipedia a lot too, not for scholarly research (I avoid the internet for that in general, seeing most of the articles are not in-depth enough, or then you have to pay for them ) but for broad backgrounding and random fun stuff. The problem is I rather forget what I've read the night before at 2am!!

[librarius_qui]

While Britannica exists, I'll have Britannica no doubt!!! (In Brasil, it's Enciclopédia Mirador, and it corresponds to the Britannica Micropaedia, even so, it's a better source of information, to me.)

HOWEVER, it's a matter of time, to Wikipedia begin being taken more seriously, I believe.

Same happens in Portuguese with Grammar, only, in Portuguese, Wikipedia is still a lot more limited (in general information) than in English, and it doesn't seem trustworthy, to whomever has a higher level of instruction and/or experience in research. It has awful reputation in Brasilian academic environment. Teachers don't recommend it. Actually, they recommend not using it for research. I'm graduated, but not a teacher, so I never went into any ... practical issue on my disciples bringing works with poor quality because of this or that source, but I can imagine ... The (paper) encyclopedia is still more recommendable. Odd isn't it? Lets hope it'll change, but it will demand efforts.

It's a wonderfully promising tech tool, and I hope time will solve this matter. Even so, I think they'll have to go into some sorts of changes, so as to become academically trustworthy. Don't know. & Lets see ...

That's what I think. ~


librarius
klicky

[JCamilo]

Cannt trust Wikipedia, it is not depth enough. The only thing interesting is Bouvard and Pecuchet

[Amylian]

I remember our doctor, when asked us to bring him an essay paper, not to use Wiki and the sites like sparknotes, enotes alike. I asked why, but not an exact answer I heard. He just stated that "it is useless for some people think they can write but in fact you write better than them." Well, he may be right since I always people criticizing Wiki as a wealthy source. I wonder why?

[RG57]

I often use Wikipedia as a general sourse of information, quite often there is a link that will take somewhere else about the subject, at times more reliable. I have used it for basic information on authors, actors and such. At present my wife is in her final year of a BA Cultural Studies course, and the first thing they told her that was Wiki was not allowed as it is not a reliable academic source of information.

[JBI]

I like Wikipedia, actually. I only use it to look random unimportant informations though. But I often correct grammar errors too on that website, and often find ridiculous pieces of information, badly written texts, etc. I think the thing is among the best inventions of internet though.



Say I am reading a novel, and the setting involves some early century Mexican revolution. I can just click there and get the big picture and then go on with my novel.

Say, I am reading a novel and want to know something about the author, what are his other works, etc. Kind of what you would get in a preface that is inexistent in our case, isn't wikipedia, then, very nice?

In the words of one of my teachers. I know about google - I use it too when I'm lazy - but it isn't reliable, and cannot be used for anything beyond a grade 4 level.

She basically said, we are covering some big terminology, don't look it up on wikipedia, you will get junk; there are no bibliographies or references from accredited places. The only way to get real info is in a book, or an online database and in this instance suggested the Princeton Anthology of Literary Terms.

Yes, I know it is convenient - but the question was asking about assignments - should teachers accept it. Of course they shouldn't - and google in general isn't very acceptable. The whole point of research is that you do it - if you can only research as far as punching something into Wikipedia, than what good is your research.

[JBI]

I remember our doctor, when asked us to bring him an essay paper, not to use Wiki and the sites like sparknotes, enotes alike. I asked why, but not an exact answer I heard. He just stated that "it is useless for some people think they can write but in fact you write better than them." Well, he may be right since I always people criticizing Wiki as a wealthy source. I wonder why?

Because, you cannot learn from someone who knows less than you - the quality of writing on Wikipedia and online in general, is sub-par. Sparknotes is essentially one persons (perhaps not even a bright person) summary of text. Meaning you are reading a basic, and often silly interpretation, rather than the text itself. Sparknotes doesn't, for instance, even site where the information is coming from in the book, the just give the chapter name, thereby making things rather silly. You get a second-hand view of the book from a very limited perspective.

Of course, Sparknotes has its advantage, but unless you are a struggling grade 8 student, that advantage, beyond refreshing ones memory without rereading, is rather minimal. But then again, there are those who cheat even in university and only read Sparknotes. But I personally think they lose in the end, because they cannot possibly have the same grasp as an intelligent reader who has actually looked at the text. So when it comes time to write an essay, or a test, they end up against the wall.

[librarius_qui]

He just stated that "it is useless for some people think they can write but in fact you write better than them." Well, he may be right since I always people criticizing Wiki as a wealthy source. I wonder why?

Revision would be something, for a start. But there's more than this.

Not only a Grammar revision, but a body of researchers for revising the contents, and correcting ... It's the work of an encyclopedia, after all, I think ...

It can be done, but it should be restructured, and it'd probably not be possible to keep it (for) free ... In a way, it works well for its purpose.

There are encyclopedias available in the internet, that you can access, if you pay for it. Researchers do eat as well (...).

Well I don't know, I'm not a researcher. Perhaps they don't eat. They might be spending the money in plans for conquering the galaxy!





librarius
klicky

[optimisticnad]

I like wiki. Would I use it for my essays or for other critical stuff? No. Absolutely not. Would I use it when I know next to nothing about something and would like some 'light' place to start? Yes.

[kelby_lake]

It's good if you want a brief overview of something. I'd say it's a good starting point.

[Etienne]

In the words of one of my teachers. I know about google - I use it too when I'm lazy - but it isn't reliable, and cannot be used for anything beyond a grade 4 level.

She basically said, we are covering some big terminology, don't look it up on wikipedia, you will get junk; there are no bibliographies or references from accredited places. The only way to get real info is in a book, or an online database and in this instance suggested the Princeton Anthology of Literary Terms.

Yes, I know it is convenient - but the question was asking about assignments - should teachers accept it. Of course they shouldn't - and google in general isn't very acceptable. The whole point of research is that you do it - if you can only research as far as punching something into Wikipedia, than what good is your research.

Well of course, internet in general - unless looking at some official websites, or looking for paper references through internet (or etexts) - is worthless. I was only referring at looking at very random, shallow stuff, for purely personal use.