The Question of Wikipedia

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

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!!

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
:crash:

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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amylian

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! :alien:


:D


librarius
klicky
:crash:

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

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! :alien:

---

Well that's making wikipedia something that it isn't. The only way such an amount of information can be put on wikipedia is by not having everything systematically verified but letting people in general do the job. That's the principle of it. Make it otherwise and you will just have another "professional" encyclopedia. Wikipedia's method has it's strength and it's weaknesses that are inherent to the method used. It's strength is the great democratization of knowledge and the great amount of subjects covered. It's weakness, is a direct cause of it's strength, and namely, that it will forever be worthless as a serious source - and that is perfectly alright, because it was never it's point.

It's always been a starting off point for me but in the end I rarely end there and light topics I never really second guess the information but with it comes to history I have found peoples own views are given of certain wars, battles and leaders etc. The same with literature, people can interpret certain plot points and character developments their own way and somebody just skimming might take it for fact when the complete opposite might be true. I know I've looked back and cursed wiki a few times anyway.

Although I have read a few books where I found out later that the author either plagiarized, mislead or took something out of context with certain events. So the problem can work in both mediums.

Wikipedia needs to move on now and try to become a much more reliable source and try win people over or else I can see something else coming along and toppling it.

Ihem is this mike on? ..ok heed my words people
Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information!!!!
its is alright for a quick starting point or a summery of a film or even just to follow the links to the external sources it quotes but it is not and never will be a good reliable information resource. No just because anyone can edit it that DOES NOT mean it is peer reviewed, nor is that a strength.

but it does have loads of information there and in fact it has some fairly accurate stuff on heavy going topics>>> it had last year anyway all the correct equations for calculating recovery and retrieval of search engines and weighting of terms and inverse frequency and all that jazz related to making serach engine right, and google actually does take you to a lot of very good resources if you use it properly its just that usually its too much hassel to go through and refine all the search details aas much as one really should.

:D

Quote:

---

Wikipedia needs to move on now and try to become a much more reliable source and try win people over or else I can see something else coming along and toppling it.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Not really, because that's not necessarily what wikipedia is meant to be.

---

Well If they want to settle thats fine by me but if the continue to leave the doubts out there then they can say goodbye to any long term serious goals if they have any. I'm sure they wont want to be known as being totally unreliable and a joke within some circles.

What about increasing and enriching the amount of article, and not only in English, but especially in other languages? That's one hell of a long-term goal. And the articles are all slowly being improved (that means also getting more reliable), but just never expect them to reach academic standards, and even if one article does have academic standards in terms of reliability, wikipedia can still not be used as a reliable source, even if it's only because the next article about some random manga character or-I-don't-know-what, doesn't cite it's sources correctly or does not have credible sources.

I guess I'll just have to keep going to the library for my WW2 information and leave wikipedia for finding out which episode of That 70's Show Mitch Hedberg was in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petya

I guess I'll just have to keep going to the library for my WW2 information and leave wikipedia for finding out which episode of That 70's Show Mitch Hedberg was in.

---

There are many good sites on the web that cover the area of WWll it's just a case of careful research, though books are better!

It’s alright for a very general overview on something and if it is used in this way I see no problem. Of course it is not to be relied upon beyond this - it’s a sort of ‘bag o’ crisps’ of the information world.

Honestly, I have seen sourced info there that is just flat out wrong. I think that is problematic to say the least.

I always tell my students this:

"Wikipedia is a nice place to start researching; it's a lousy place to end researching."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Honestly, I have seen sourced info there that is just flat out wrong. I think that is problematic to say the least.

---

I can’t say I have ever seen any that bad but I am sure there are some out there that are. If you use Wiki you have to take that risk, it is the nature of the site - of course I’ve never used it for literary purposes or anything of much importance at all, nor would I ever. I must say too that I have read some quite good ones - this one about Sheffield which I stumbled across the other day is quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I always tell my students this:

"Wikipedia is a nice place to start researching; it's a lousy place to end researching."

---

This certainly seems to be the consensus here. Interestingly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Seems to talk about the same thing we are. Interestingly these are full of citations, and I suspect they are the most stringently edited articles in there.

Flip through the references - some even link back to wikipedia itself. And, more importantly, almost none of those sources are peer reviewed if any. Not to mention the fact that there is clear bias in the article. A most mediocre justification I might say. The truth is, wiki is rubbish. Sometimes, rubbish is faster and easier, so we read it. But it is still rubbish.

That being said, the article compares wiki to Britanica, not to real sources. Why not compare it to something with more credibility. Half the non-contemporary stuff on Wiki seems lifted from Public Domain versions of Britanica anyway.

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.