The "Wikipedia policy"

[Gruthar]

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.

Well, you need to take all your sources with a grain of salt. I would not use a website that wasn't produced by a scholar, or and academic/professional organization, for instance. Similarly I wouldn't just go to the street and interview any yahoo if I was doing a report on the Spanish-American War.

Wikipedia may be subject to lots of people, but that doesn't mean people are watching the article you're researching, particularly if it's something obscure.

For instance, if I looked up Augusto Pinochet on Wikipedia right now, I'm greeted with this bit of vandalism:

On 11 September 1973, perrochet, who twenty days prior had been appointed, led a coup d'état...

This calls into question the validity of the rest of the article.

 

[Timotei]

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!

A win so epic, it is beyond description.

 

[Alex_P]

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.

Last I looked, it was like some philosophy students shat all over half of the pages that have anything to do with AI and cognitive science concepts. I'm not sure if anyone ever went and cleaned it up.

-- Alex

 

[Naeo]

Eh, doesn't bother me. My teachers usually make me have mostly print sources anyways, distrusting the internet unless it's a .gov or a well-known/reputed/easily verifiable .edu. As for Wikipedia, the problem is that the citations come out messy and if I cite something once it may not be the same when my teacher is checking it. And, plus, whilst generally reliable on things like math and history, on things like current events I'd be inherently wary of any open-editing site. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't always have all or any of the facts I need, as I tend to go pretty in-depth with my essays and such by both choice for credit and mandate by prompt/teacher.

Although the pages are great for finding starting points and the resources at the bottom help a lot. Call me odd, but I kind of agree or at least don't have a problem with the Wikipedia policy.

 

[Gruthar]

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.

Last I looked, it was like some philosophy students shat all over half of the pages that have anything to do with AI and cognitive science concepts. I'm not sure if anyone ever went and cleaned it up.

-- Alex

Touche, but that might fall under my controversial caveat, since those are very experimental areas. With stuff like sorting algorithms, programming paradigms, and history I've never come across a problem.

Edit: I just looked at the Cognitive Science page. It starts off with ancient Greek philosophy. Oh dear. The rest is just as bad. Wow.

 

[ILPPendant]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Vandalize_Every_Equation [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Vandalize_Every_Equation]

(It's ED so expect a general NSFW atmosphere)

Anyway, my point is that it's far too easy to edit a source like Wikipedia out of either malice or ignorance so I wouldn't take the risk of citing it as a source or assiging it undue credibility. It's great for accumulating dinner party trivia but not so good for writing serious academic papers.

I will, however, use it freely to help orient myself on a subject and take advantage of its source libraries, which will further cut down on my research time. It's certainly more useful than trawling blindly through Amazon or the local library.

 

[megapenguinx]

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

Yay for cookies! But seriously, there are way more credible and thorough sources than wikipedia out there. Think of wikipedia as the cliffnotes of the world

 

[ExaltedK9]

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

Then I hope they accept

Urgh....ok, I give up, what does "Desu" mean?

 

[Geamo]

If I ever became a teacher, I would set an essay on something specific; that I knew wikipedia had a topic perfect on, with the answers all set out (all dates and information).

I would then go after school that day and change the article slightly, changing dates briefly. Then i'd see all the people who use wikipedia for copy pasting, and then prove to them that data can be wrong, that it could be changed by anyone. It'd teach an interesting lesson, regardless.