The "Wikipedia policy"

[Timotei]

What are your opinions on the "Wikipedia policy"?

I'm sure most of us are quite annoyed with this "wikipedia is not a credible source" junk our teachers tell us.

We all well know that this is a bias based on what Wikipedia used to be like. Yet anyone who's visited the site within the last year knows is not the case anymore. You can learn more by looking it up in Wikipedia than you would visiting three other sites on the same subject.

 

[hypothetical fact]

What are your opinions on the "Wikipedia policy"?

I'm sure most of us are quite annoyed with this "wikipedia is not a credible source" junk our teachers tell us.

We all well know that this is a bias based on what Wikipedia used to be like. Yet anyone who's visited the site within the last year knows is not the case anymore. You can learn more by looking it up in Wikipedia than you would visiting three other sites on the same subject.

Just use the info from wiki but use their sources as your bibliogrpahy.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I agree, though most of my teachers would accept Wikipedia. Most teachers I had preferred book sources to interweb ones, though.

 

[joystickjunki3]

When I'm a teacher, I'll allow Wikipedia as a source. I trust it, but I check all the sources anyways just to be sure.

 

[Citrus]

Teachers have a really stupid way of looking at it.

Everything on the internet is true unless it's on Wikipedia.

 

[Kermi]

Wikipedia is basically a summary. As long as they're using the references so there's a verifiable source for the information they're using, I don't see the problem.

 

[Snugglebunny]

I am all over wikipedia, especially because I mainly use it to look up cultural stuff like what happens in the end of horror movies because I'm too much of a scaredy cat to watch them all the way thru ^^

 

[megapenguinx]

When I'm a professor I won't allow using the page as a source, but I will encourage the students to use their sources as a start.

 

[Ossum]

Hmm, I seem to recall looking up Ohm's Law once and finding Ominominominom's Law instead. The edit didn't last long but it's an example of the sort of error one could incorporate into their paper until another sharp-eyed and knowledgeable editor fixed it.

Of course, that's not even counting the evident sources of bias in some articles that simply doesn't ever get removed, removed only when challenged, or bias restored in very short order. Articles on Scientology are notorious for the last one, with the Scientologists making edits en masse to massage opinion and remove "forbidden" info, until Wiki admins banned known Scientologist IPs.

Books have a higher standard of credibility to reach; they can still be wrong but it's generally because newer information refutes the old, not because some crackpot in his underwear has gone and changed a date or excised critical information.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Just use the info from wiki but use their sources as your bibliogrpahy.

Precisely. Use it as a source library rather than a library, that way you won't be overrun by false facts and the like. That's all the teachers want to see, your ability to locate information. Use wiki to find the sources, then roll on the floor laughing your ass off as you complete assignments in mere days!

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Gruthar]

The problem is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not necessarily that it's inaccurate. I use it a lot when I'm looking up Computer Science concepts, and it is pretty sound in that respect. With more controversial topics, it can be problematic. Again, though, it's not its reliability that's in question.

The bottom line is if you're writing a serious research paper, you should be analyzing primary sources and selecting secondary sources to include to support your point or hypothesis. You may miss some important things if you just regurgitate whatever Wikipedia states, since oftentimes it's a summary of a summary. It's useful as an overview, but I would not use it to support a point I was making precisely because it can be vague and, once in a blue moon, wrong in its analysis.

 

[puppydogvaan]

Well, it's not like wikipedia is any more unreliable than any other site, but I imagine someone who created an entire website on a subject would have less incentive to screw with random people they don't know.

Personally, I try to use sites linked to universities for research papers. When your bibliography lists a college name, it looks (and probably is) more legit.

 

[F17]

For current-like events it can be a bit dodgy, but for history papers I find it to be not bad. If someone's going to spend the time writing a whole article on an obscure English king in the early medieval period, he'll probably know what he's talking about.

 

[DragonsAteMyMarbles]

As far as sources go, it's a pretty damn good one. Only problem is, since anyone can edit it (which leads to some truly evil people changing the odd bit so it looks OK but the changes work synergistically to generate a great steaming puddle of arse-gravy) a lot of academic types won't accept it as a source.
Which is a shame, since the alternative - looking it up in a book - sometimes means wading through text that's so badly written as to be complete and utter gibberdribble (new word). Especially if you've been cursed with the heinous Atkins' Physical Chemistry textbook.

What I was told on my first day at university was to use Wikipedia but then check in a textbook or something to back it up.

EDIT: I've contradicted myself here, haven't I?

 

[Timotei]

When I'm a teacher, I'll allow Wikipedia as a source. I trust it, but I check all the sources anyways just to be sure.

When I'm a professor I won't allow using the page as a source, but I will encourage the students to use their sources as a start.

You are immediately and eternally my favorite people.

Here's a

 

[ElephantGuts]

I always use WIkipedia, no matter what what my teachers tell me.

But, I was thinking about this, and please tell me if I'm crazy, but isn't Wikipedia safer than private sites? I mean, Wikipedia is subject to tons of people most of whom have valid intentions. So if someone writes something incorrect, chances are it will be fixed.

But on other sites, there's nothing guaranteeing it's true. Whoever makes the site can write whatever the hell they want, and there's no one to correct them. If I get my information from a Neo-Nazi who writes that the Holocaust was a lie, does that make it true because it isn't Wikipedia?

I think I'll tell me teacher that next time. They're naive to think that all sites other than Wikipedia have to be correct. If they would stop and think for a second, they'd realize that Wikipedia is safer because it's subject to so many people.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Suiseiseki discovers too late that cookies do not approve of Wikipedia as a source.

they'd realize that Wikipedia is safer because it's subject to so many people.

Just like 4chan is teeming with fantastic advice, because it has so many people!

 

[[Gavo]]

Ok. I think it's a credible starting point and a summary site, that's it.
Example: My humanities teacher assigned our team (2 classes of roughly 25) to find a Wikipedia page for homework that had misinformation. No one got anything, except me. I found an article that was very slightly biased. That's it. She turned it into an extra credit assignment.

But this is my final stand. Wikipedia is a good introduction, and it has sources you can and should use (at the bottom of the page). If I ever got an assignment as a teacher with Wikipedia as the only source, I would severely mark down the student.

 

[Timotei]

Suiseiseki discovers too late that cookies do not approve of Wikipedia as a source.

Then I hope they accept

 

[joystickjunki3]

When I'm a teacher, I'll allow Wikipedia as a source. I trust it, but I check all the sources anyways just to be sure.

When I'm a professor I won't allow using the page as a source, but I will encourage the students to use their sources as a start.

You are immediately and eternally my favorite people.

Here's a

Haha, thanks, but I feel I should clarify. If the student does use Wikipedia as a source and it turns out to be invalid and they did not check the sources listed in Wiki, then there will probably be points deducted. But that's assuming I catch the impurities.