The Question of Wikipedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Not really, because that's not necessarily what wikipedia is meant to be. It's reliable enough for what it's purpose is. Just like, say, this topics in this forum are not supposed to be moderated by specialists to be sure each question is answered exactly correctly. It's not about being cited as a serious source, but it's about making the information as accessible as possible and this entails degree of unreliability, which is not really a factor when it comes to how one should use it. For example, the other day I had a drunken chat with a friend and we came to a point where we needed to check something about color perception. I'm not going to go drunk at 2 A.M in a library. That's why wikipedia is there. Not for academic papers or even serious personal research.

---

Yes I basically agree. Wikipedia is not meant to be a research tool. It's an encyclopedia and subject to the same errors of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren't perfect. I think it is a good quick tool. It will not do for scholarly work, but neither does an encyclopedia. Actually I find it more in depth than a book encyclopedia. The entries are much longer and cross linked. And except for controversial topics, such as politics and current events, I find the entries very reliable. I have not found any errors in the science entries and even the literature is not bad. Those of you who are comparing it to scholarly books are comparing apples and oranges. I say hooray for wikipedia. It saves me lots of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yes I basically agree. Wikipedia is not meant to be a research tool. It's an encyclopedia and subject to the same errors of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren't perfect. I think it is a good quick tool. It will not do for scholarly work, but neither does an encyclopedia. Actually I find it more in depth than a book encyclopedia. The entries are much longer and cross linked. And except for controversial topics, such as politics and current events, I find the entries very reliable. I have not found any errors in the science entries and even the literature is not bad. Those of you who are comparing it to scholarly books are comparing apples and oranges. I say hooray for wikipedia. It saves me lots of time.

---

I agree. I think Wikipedia is quite useful and surprisingly reliable.

There does seem to be a problem with its image, though. Some of the posts in this thread are just a few examples of the tendency of some people to compare Wikipedia with real scholarship, which suggests to me that its intended purpose may not be very well understood. I wonder if this misunderstanding is due in part to the attitudes of teachers. There was no such thing as Wikipedia when I was in school, so I really have no idea how teachers really treat it in the classroom, but I often hear about teachers simply adopting a no-Wikipedia-allowed policy. I can't help but wonder if an opportunity is being missed in these situations to teach students about sources of information. I fear this kind of approach might give the impression that using Wikipedia is like using a calculator -- correct but too easy -- when the problem with Wikipedia is really of an entirely different nature.

I love Wikipedia. I'm not a student or research scholar or anything, and it's perfect for looking up any odd information you may need or wonder about during the course of the day, like what is Betelgeuse-I-know-I've heard-about-it-somewhere or who wrote the Book of Job?

It's accessible, it's there!

I know I am a dinosaur, but I attended university before Google came to be, and in my day no one used encyclopedia as a primary citation source. Given that, I find wiki useful to refresh my memory or give me some basic facts, but I am a mature author and know my editor would run me out of town if I used wiki as a source. It isn't done, but that is with any reference guide. It is a tool, but not a primary source, and responsible students learn the difference.

Why are we even comparing wikipedia to credible sources of information one would use for a research paper, or any in depth research on anything for that matter.. it seems a little absurd, for I have never met nor heard of a University Prof who would accept Wikipedia as a source for a research paper.. using it, well that would be a guaranteed Fail right there.. this discussion is somewhat pointless..

on the other hand, it is also extremely pointless to say that wikipedia is "rubbish" or "worthless"... that is a totally elitist and snobby viewpoint... Maybe some people like to better educate themselves on things they know absolutely nothing about, and not everyone has a lax enough lifestyle that they can spend hours researching things in a University library.. I would think that would be obvious for those suggesting we should all do that... Wikipedia is an excellent place to better educate yourself on things in general.. The philosophy and religion articles are just great for a general overview, and for basic knowledge.. same with the scientific articles.. and yes, I have found mistakes on there before, and biased articles, but that is life, for the most part wikipedia is an excellent tool for gaining general knowledge on many things... SO.. so being someone who has the time to spend hours/days researching things is all fine and dandy.. but some of us have jobs that don't allow for that.. yet maybe, just maybe we still like to gain general knowledge on many different things and wikipedia is just perfect for that.. I've done my share of research papers in Philosophy and Religion, and spent my hours in a University library while I was in University.. Now, I don't have time for that... but if I come across something I don't know much about and would like to learn a little more I will go to wikipedia in a second.. to gain a general knowledge of it.. If I find an author, that I like, I will see what else he has written on wikipedia... or say an artist I like, I will find about more about him, what movement or school he belonged to, what era, similar painters, all that stuff.. wikipedia is great for.. I don't need to go to the library and do intensive research to gain a general idea of what Dostoevsky wrote, or what Picasso painted, and the general history of cubism, etc... wikipedia suits me just fine then... saying otherwise is absurd..

Wikipedia is written by volunteers and is a wonderful collaborative effort to provide free information, readily available, and such a concept deserves nothing but praise. Sadly, many young people are disinclined to read, but they will use the internet and any way to foster the acquisition of knowledge is only to be encouraged.

I think it is sad that all its expert and specialist critics do not spare some of their time to contribute and help improve its overall accuracy and content.

For everyone here who are bashing Wikipedia and Google - they are both almost invaluable for me when I do my school assignments. And yes - I do study at university. And yes - our teachers actually always tell us to google things and they also encourage us to use Wikipedia.

I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable and scientific source in the world, but it is accurate enough and most importantly there is a huge amount of information available and it only takes a few clicks to find the thing you're looking for.

Whenever I do translations for school, I read several Wikipedia articles for background information about things that come up in the text I'm translating. It helps me to understand the text better, and that way I can come up with a better translation.

(I could live without Wikipedia, but I wouldn't survive without Google.)

Of course it is elitist to say Wiki is worthless. To be a very good student and belong to the elite of people who know deeply something you need to ignore Wiki and most Enciclopedias. This is not now, as Flaubert would tell us, but the best place to see how Dostoieviksy wrote is reading him.