The Wikipedia Stereotype

[otters~1]

I have done countless school projects--research papers, biographies, whatever--and in every one of them, Wikipedia could have been quite helpful in citing sources (which I am always required to do). However, no teacher has ever let me use Wikipedia, even though it's easily the best information resource on the internet. The argument is always, "It can be edited by anyone." That is so much bullshit--the censor system is damn near perfect. It is a shame that this great resource is not usable solely because it's by the people, for the people.

So, does this happen to anyone else? Vent below.


Edit: Nature magazine study... http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as ... 97332.html

[wedgie]

I totally agree. I use wiki so much for finding out information. While I was doing all of my uni work I could have had it so much easier if I was allowed to cite wiki. Wiki has gotten a bad name that it really doesn't deserve. It's an amazing source of information.

[scythe]

Just do what I do: use Wikipedia as a source and cite the sources listed at the bottom of the article.

[otters~1]

Just do what I do: use Wikipedia as a source and cite the sources listed at the bottom of the article.

Exactly. Whenever I'm asked for a "scholarly" source, I wiki my topic and scroll to the bottom. I always get a lot of legitimate sites, too, so teachers can't complain.

[a happy song]

Exactly. I argue this case all the time. Citations and the absolute anal natures of those editing the pages on a regular basis ensures that most of the information should be accurate enough to rely on.

[Yoshimo]

I'm not allowed to use wiki eaither; it has 'uncredibility'.

BackSide

[otters~1]

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as ... 97332.html

This was a study done by Nature magazine pitting Wikipedia vs. Britannica. Apparently Wikipedia has just 4 mistakes for every 3 by Britannica, and has vastly more articles. Linked into first post.

[toasters]

I doubt any teacher is going to allow the use of Wikipedia for research papers or any kind of school work. I think that other than the "anyone can edit it" argument teachers worry that students will rely on the information found on Wikipedia alone, and won't follow the sources to check its validity. I wouldn't mind using Wikipedia for papers, but it doesn't bother me not being able to use it. I just check Wikipedia to get the gist of whatever I'm researching and then I move on to the recommended academic sources.

[T3chno]

Wikipedia is more a launchpad for me. I go on there and look at the citations and use those. It's like all the relevant topics in one place!

[SlappyMcGee]

Wikipedia has some articles that are extremely accurate and well sourced, but more often than not, articles are written with a bias and with few sources. :(

I think a collective of all information defeats the purpose of most of these papers anyway. Learning how to properly research, anyone?

[otters~1]

I think a collective of all information defeats the purpose of most of these papers anyway. Learning how to properly research, anyone?

Unfortunately, school is complete shit these days. Learning to research is all well and good, but that includes using all the info at your fingertips. If Wiki helps me get through a dumb, ill-thought-out assignment, I'll use it, and fool the teacher with the various methods above.

So, I disagree with you--let us debate.

[TribulatioN]

Hah! We're allowed to use one or two Wikipedia articles in our references. Which essentially, when using the cites Wikipedia lists, gives us all of the references we need for any assignment.

[squibbles]

I have ONE teacher who lets me use wikipedia. It's sooooooo good. :)

[SlappyMcGee]

I think a collective of all information defeats the purpose of most of these papers anyway. Learning how to properly research, anyone?

Unfortunately, school is complete shit these days. Learning to research is all well and good, but that includes using all the info at your fingertips. If Wiki helps me get through a dumb, ill-thought-out assignment, I'll use it, and fool the teacher with the various methods above.

So, I disagree with you--let us debate.

Using the -sources- of Wikipedia articles is different, because those are facts that are actually sourced. So, that isn't a trick, it's an effective research tool. What I'll contest here is the idea that anything on Wikipedia is necessarily information. I can go write anything on any Wikipedia page, and I can source that fact using a Geocities page I just made, and the fact will likely stay up as long as it isn't on a locked heavily monitored page.

[lord_day]

Wikipedia is good for some research projects, but not for all. For example if you are writing a science report, then it will most likely be largely correct and full of factual information, because science is largely unopinionated. But if you were to write a History essay using Wikipedia, you'll likely find that most articles are written from one or two historians view. While the practise of history is about arguing your opinion on what happened in past events, people use Wikipedia as a way to do this, and so what seems like a page of factual information is often heavily biased to the authors views.

[Adoniseppi]

The thing that assures me that Wikipedia's information is true is that pretty much every sentence is cited, and I could confirm its veracity simply by clicking on the little blue number.

Granted some facts aren't cited. However, these facts are always accompanied by a little [citation needed] link. In most cases these facts are opinionated or subjective, and I simply read them and don't use them. Of course I don't really need to use Wikipedia for anything in college and now simply browse it to satisfy my own curiosity. I do believe Wikipedia should be able to be used as a source, but I can understand the teachers' issue with it. On principal it isn't a fully reliable source.

[SlappyMcGee]

The thing that assures me that Wikipedia's information is true is that pretty much every sentence is cited, and I could confirm its veracity simply by clicking on the little blue number.

Granted some facts aren't cited. However, these facts are always accompanied by a little [citation needed] link. In most cases these facts are opinionated or subjective, and I simply read them and don't use them. Of course I don't really need to use Wikipedia for anything in college and now simply browse it to satisfy my own curiosity. I do believe Wikipedia should be able to be used as a source, but I can understand the teachers' issue with it. On principal it isn't a fully reliable source.

What? Have you visited Wikipedia? The VAST majority of facts are uncited, and often times the ones that have citations do not necessarily lead to articles that actually present said facts. Example:

Ed.

None of the information on this relatively small page is cited. Furthermore, the citation that is provided gives virtually no information on the film in question.

I could do this for thousands upon thousands of pages. If you think that Wikipedia has enough citations to be a credible source, then you need to consider that if you ever handed in any of their articles as a research paper, you would fail for a lack of citation in most places, not to mention an obvious bias on many pages.

The reason people don't need to cite their sources in their papers when they have attained a certain level of academia is because they are experts in their fields. When you have articles that can be edited by anybody in the world, then that requires MUCH stricter citation to have any sort of credibility.

[a happy song]

Slappy, that's a single page of a relatively unknown film that I'll safely assume not many people give two hoots about. Find a page relating to something academic that isn't being pedantically pruned and updated with mass citations, and I'll hold your example as a good one.

[SlappyMcGee]

How about universally acclaimed director Jean-Luc Godard? Two citations in an entire article, of which one is specifically for a quote.

[a happy song]

How about universally acclaimed director Jean-Luc Godard? Two citations in an entire article, of which one is specifically for a quote.

Ok, well, obviously, going to that page looking for citations for your paper, you'd notice the banners at the top and hopefully avoid trusting in the information too much.

The banners being produce of that pedantic nature that can give the wiki article on academic matters credibility.

[Donfuy]

My teachers don't complain about Wikipedia. In the last project I've done, the Bibliography started with some random links and then more 10+ links from wikipedia.


The thing is, the portuguese wikipedia has almost nothing, so I go to the english wikipedia to go and find everything. Then I get the work of translating it all. Most of my teachers All my teachers don't understand english, so they don't say nothing about being all in one site.

[MattKestrel]

Odd. No-one I've ever met has had any qualms over using it. I must be one of the lucky ones :P

[scythe]

Wikipedia claims to deal in verifiability, and in general paying attention to an uncited article is foolish. The editors there advise citing a particular revision of a page; you can, if it suits you, choose to cite only revisions that were made by Wikipedia administrators on pages without notices. Doing that seriously decreases the chances you'll get inaccurate information.

On another note, I blanked List of Unicode Characters (the longest article on Wikipedia) once, and it stayed blank for four hours. Hehe.

[yungerkid]

i think wikipedia is a great source of information. my only issue with it is that it is too unspecific. it needs more information. needs to be a larger project. but sources don't matter to me; i trust everything on wikipedia that seems reasonable.

[otters~1]

my only issue with it is that it is too unspecific. it needs more information. needs to be a larger project.

It is huge. Don't know what you mean.

As for Slappy, of course you'll find examples. But not too many.