Use of Wikipedia as a Source

[SomeRandom]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

I remember back in high school, Wikipedia was accepted as a source so long as the actual article in question was verified and you included another independent source that agreed with it. Kind of interesting in hindsight that even my crummy public high school encouraged this.

 

[George-ananda]

Anyone still anti-Wiki?

I am.

Although I use and respect Wiki all the time for stuff that doesn't deal with the paranormal.

A so-called Skeptic activist group has actively skewed articles in their favor and I have seen many complaints about that from people in the field. Here's a link: Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

Their name is more than kind of telling us what side they are out to promote.

I'd use Britannica on paranormal subjects to hear both sides.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

i concur with your well written analysis

 

[Brickjectivity]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

You can't use it for papers unless you backup or otherwise quote the entire article, because the Wikipedia entry is likely to change. I think that when an article is edited the previous version is tossed.

 

[Heyo]

You can't use it for papers unless you backup or otherwise quote the entire article, because the Wikipedia entry is likely to change. I think that when an article is edited the previous version is tossed.

Nope. Wikipedia keeps a version record and has discussion pages.
But it is still considered bad style.

 

[fantome profane]

I am very much pro-wiki, but I agree with those Professors who say you can’t cite it as a source in an academic paper.

A good Wikipedia article should provide the reader with good citations of its own, if it doesn’t, don’t use it. If it does take the extra effort and check out those references directly.

This is for academic papers, for an informal setting like this, have at it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Personally, I find Wikipedia to be more useful than other online encyclopedias such as Brittanica. The articles go into much more detail and do a much better job defining terms with hotlinks to other articles.

Here's proof that Wikipedia is great: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is great because Wikipedia says it's great.

Just like some other book (whose name escapes me atm ) is correct because it says it's correct.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For myself, Wikipedia is a good starting point for anything that I might have no knowledge of concerning some particular subject, but I would likely research further if the information given wasn't rather obvious. And I would tend to follow up any links given if such was necessary. Anything that was the slightest bit controversial would usually mean I had to look elsewhere too. And of course I would weigh the information given with that obtained elsewhere, such as research articles or the opinions of others. The latter given appropriate consideration.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Wikipedia is a good overview of a topic and a great quick resource for other, more academic sources.

I also grew up in a world where Wikipedia was frowned upon. I often wonder whether it's actually better than it was before, or if our standards have just fallen so low that it's lifted up in contrast...

 

[Kooky]

I’m certainly pro-Wikipedia, though like any source, it has its limitations. Articles are usually up to date, well referenced, comprehensive and carefully edited.

If you keep to well-frequented English language articles about popular and well known topics. The further you stray from those, the more often you will stumble upon some power user with a chip on his shoulder's personal fiefdom.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think Wikipedia is a good source as long as the references, citations, notes are legitimate and accurate, accuracy being relative.

 

[Meow Mix]

I love using Wikipedia and using my university access to read the actual papers for the references (I guess this only matters on scientific topics). It's a good way to get started. Then you can check out the references' references, or just type the subject matter in google scholar for more if you're feeling particularly lazy.