Wikipedia as a source?

[Jim]

(edit) NOTE: This post was poorly worded. It looked to me like some people were misunderstanding what Wikipedia is, when they were citing it in support of their views. (end edit)

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

It is good for references and that is about it. I like to use specialized Wikis for a source though. Like this one:

 

[Enoch07]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

No

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

Might as well call it Lazypedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

Or you could stop being lazy and click on the sources yourself. Wikipedia is fine as long as the article at hand has been well-maintained.

 

[David T]

RED FLAG:, FORUM VIOLATION
request to be realistic.

what really upsets me is they never follow through on any of my clearly called red flag penalties. BIAS...

 

[Mindmaster]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

It's not even good at that, often it'll just cite politically left-leaning sources which makes it completely biased no matter what the subject. Areas or subjects that are particularly tainted are on subjects like climate, biology, and psychology -- anything where there is some contention or debate.

Though it takes more time finding information directly from the researchers in the field is far more useful. Wikipedia will often lean toward whoever is politically correct regardless of the lack of consensus on a matter, so therein lies my attitude of caution. If all you read is Wikipedia you've probably been made more stupid by the effort unknowingly.

BTW: Even Google doesn't help this -- it often will cite similar biased articles to present information on contentious material. So, don't just click the first couple of links and think you're getting an accurate presentation of material about a particular subject. (In fairness, I'm an individualist. Neither, left, nor right, but what's right for me and those I care about. And, even from that sort of "middle" Google seems biased.)

 

[dybmh]

Might as well call it Lazypedia

It's easy to ask for another source if the wikipedia article doesn't match your understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

I disagree.
Wikipedia is the best resource we have for a topic's summary.
If you find something erroneous cited, you can point that out.
Otherwise, it's impractical for casual conversationalists to
read all the source material cited.

Might as well call it Lazypedia

I'm lazy & proud of it.
Consider all the gadflies, trolls, posers, & curmudgeons here.
Is it really worth your time to do extensive reading for presentation
to us them? They'll just throw feces at anything they dislike.

 

[Komori]

Or you could stop being lazy and click on the sources yourself. Wikipedia is fine as long as the article at hand has been well-maintained.

Often that makes it even worse. Regularly, cliques will gather around and stalk articles they have a vested interest in and prevent anyone from adding any kind of information they don't like, no matter how well-sourced it is. Case in point: all the Baha'i-related articles.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Often that makes it even worse. Regularly, cliques will gather around and stalk articles they have a vested interest in and prevent anyone from adding any kind of information they don't like, no matter how well-sourced it is. Case in point: all the Baha'i-related articles.

What's wrong with the Baha'i articles?

 

[SugarOcean]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

Years ago I knew someone who was a fact checker with Wikipedia. They said that the issue they ran into at that time at least was people would enter false information in two categories that kept her and her team the most busy. American history and any subject beneath the Christian/Christianity header. Bible scriptures, historic figures in scripture, etc....
I don't have the link anymore, but she sent me the link to the page of banned IP's that Wiki published, at least back then, of the most egregious offenders for entering false citations in any subject. The list ran pages long.

Have you ever Googled , the problem with Wikipedia? Quite a lot there.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

What's wrong with the Baha'i articles?

Same thing that is wrong with the Jehovah's Witnesses handling of child abuse and other articles critical of them. You would think they were written by the Governing Body itself.

 

[Komori]

You would think they were written by the Governing Body itself.

And that is pretty much what is going on here. The study of both the Babi Movement and the Baha'i Faith is and has almost always been monopolized by academics who are members of this religion themselves and who are required by their religion to have their works approved by the administration before they are published. This results in little innovation, and most of what is published simply echoes Shoghi Effendi's hagiographies God Passes By and The Dawn-Breakers and works by people such as Balyuzi (a Baha'i "Hand of the Cause") and Taherzadeh (a former UHJ member). So these kinds of sources ultimately rule as majority. Any sources from critical academics (people like MacEoin and Cole, or even Browne) are marginalized, while the Baha'is who stalk these pages are allowed to cite their own hagiographies as gospel. If you try to add these critical sources, they'll accuse them of being "anti-Baha'i" (as if that discredits them) or accuse you of "original research."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Might as well call it Lazypedia

Yet it still is a valid source for many ideas. For example it is right almost all of the time when it comes to basic science. If one is citing cutting edge science I would not use them, but for basic physics, chemistry, biology, or geology it is pretty hard to beat.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Yet it still is a valid source for many ideas. For example it is right almost all of the time when it comes to basic science. If one is citing cutting edge science I would not use them, but for basic physics, chemistry, biology, or geology it is pretty hard to beat.

Yeah, for a basic overview of a subject it is OK but you still have to be careful about disinformation. People do vandalize it still, even the science pages

 

[Jim]

I disagree.

About what?

Wikipedia is the best resource we have for a topic's summary.

I don’t know if it’s the best or not, but it’s my favorite starting place for research.

... it's impractical for casual conversationalists to read all the source material cited.

I agree. What I was objecting to was citing Wikipedia pages as sources for debating purposes.

Consider all the gadflies, trolls, posers, & curmudgeons here.
Is it really worth your time to do extensive reading for presentation
to us them?

Well ... um ... er ... that is ... What was I thinking? That’s the whole problem. I wasn’t thinking. Wikipedia is part of the lore for the forum debating RPG, along with other media and faction stories.

Thanks. You never fail me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, for a basic overview of a subject it is OK but you still have to be careful about disinformation. People do vandalize it still, even the science pages

I heard that was way down. I thought that one had to jump through a couple of hoops before one could edit. Too much work for the average troll.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I heard that was way down. I thought that one had to jump through a couple of hoops before one could edit. Too much work for the average troll.

Bot armies are not just on twitter. It's now looked at as a political tool

 

[dianaiad]

No

I taught a class to students on how best to use Wikipedia. It had a power point slide show and everything. It was a lot of fun.

The upshot was...never, never, never use wikipedia as a primary source. If you use wikipedia as a source, and CITE it, you will fail the assignment in any class of mine, and you probably won't get a decent grade in any other class, either.

However, Wikipedia is a great first place to go when you start collecting data. Most wiki articles provide sources. Go there. Cite them.

It's also a great place to go if you can't find information about your topic anywhere ELSE. Again, wiki will probably have an article on it, and that article will probably provide sources. Great time saver, wikipedia.

Just don't ever, ever, cite it or use it as a primary source.

Ever.

Unless, of course, you are on a religious debate forum and you think you can get away with it.