Wikipedia Criticism

[mkreku]

Read the Gothic 3 wikipedia article! It is 100% correct! Trust me! )

[Diamond]

If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless.  That's kind of obvious, I would think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I am not sure how that follows from previous posts.

[thepixiesrock]

If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless.  That's kind of obvious, I would think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The information itself isn't useless. That's kind of obvious, I would think.

[Pop]

It's a good resource if you want to figure out random internet crap, but as a resource for other things it's useless. I know a lot of professors that will outright fail a student if he/she tries to use wikipedia as a reference.

[blue]

utterly useless. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I share your concerns, but I wouldn

[alanschu]

If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless.  That's kind of obvious, I would think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can for the most part, as any self-respecting wiki page that would like to be taken seriously should have references.

[Blank]

I enjoyed listening to the speech (I didn't read it, I think it would've been hard to read). Jason Scott presented a some good arguments, and had a few funny jokes within. He might be making it into a bigger issue than everyone sees it, but he also might be right. He said that Wikipedia is just a warning of what is to come in the future, an information war. One of the dangers is that Wikipedia becomes source material for people's beliefs.

 

Hopefully one couldn't turn in a paper that cited Wikipedia and get away with it easily. The speaker said that Wikipedia is great when it's for fun, for a quick reference to go to other things if you need it to be concrete. As long as you understand that at any point in time you may be eating someone else's Buologne Sandwich, you are good to go when using it.

I do not dispute that Wikipedia -- for a person who

is playing the part of a tourist, a web browser -- is a beautiful success. 

It provides you with a large amount of information, most of it seeming to

be relatively accurate, and for the purposes of the fact that you didn't

know how much of something there was, or what the name of something was,

or what something stood for, you get that reference pretty quickly.

...

While in an ideal world, with no illegitimate babies, there's nobody using

Wikipedia as a primary source, the fact is people are.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Blank

[alanschu]

I have cited Wikipedia in papers at my University. I know some people that have done it and gotten nailed for it, but I was always under the impression that it was because they didn't verify the accuracy of the information.

[thepixiesrock]

In highschool teachers don't have a problem with using Wikipedia on reports. Sometimes they even suggest it. They just want other sources though, and not just Wikipedia.

[Blank]

Well, one could technically go onto wikipedia and write their own thing, and then take that information as from wikipedia, then cite it.

[~Di]

If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless.  That's kind of obvious, I would think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can for the most part, as any self-respecting wiki page that would like to be taken seriously should have references.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The sources offered, if sources are offered, may indeed contain accurate and useful information. However, the Wiki articles themselves do not, in my opinion. I have also used Wiki to drum up a handy list of references. I do not, however, use the information in Wiki itself since it is untrustworthy unless every statement and fact is diligently researched via the sources... and that being the case, it is the sources I would be trusting, not Wiki.

 

Edit: Although I don't know what is or is not allowed in high school or college research material nowadays (I'd be pretty stunned if unsourced Wiki articles were allowed in our educational system, but sranger things have happened); however, if I tried to support facts in my books via Wikipedia, my editor (when she finished laughing) would certainly let me know that if I couldn't come up with a verifiable and accurate source, then the fact in question would be edited out of my manuscript.

Edited September 14, 2006 by ~Di

[alanschu]

Well, one could technically go onto wikipedia and write their own thing, and then take that information as from wikipedia, then cite it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your wikipedia link doesn't have valid references, then you should get smacked for it.

 

 

I have also used Wiki to drum up a handy list of references. I do not, however, use the information in Wiki itself since it is untrustworthy unless every statement and fact is diligently researched via the sources... and that being the case, it is the sources I would be trusting, not Wiki.

 

An interesting thing though, is that if you go to Wikipedia, even if it is just to find other references, you should still cite Wikipedia.

 

Otherwise it is way to easy to end up plagerizing.

[WITHTEETH]

I want to delete the name of all of Platos work and take credit for it!

[Pop]

If wikipedia cites something, why not just use the cited material? This is the problem that a lot of profs have with Wikipedia. You're not using a reference, you're using a reference of a reference. Most people won't even check the cited material.

 

That's not even getting into the problem of peer review.

 

"Otherwise it is way to easy to end up plagerizing."

Plagiarizing who, exactly?

Edited September 14, 2006 by Pop

[alanschu]

If wikipedia cites something, why not just use the cited material? This is the problem that a lot of profs have with Wikipedia. You're not using a reference, you're using a reference of a reference. Most people won't even check the cited material.

 

That's not even getting into the problem of peer review.

 

Then why do people often cite academic papers, which often have their own references to what the person is saying. A decent textbook still uses references as well. So instead of using the textbook (which cites its reference), I should actually go and find the original reference (and hope it isn't a reference in and of itself?).

 

 

"Otherwise it is way to easy to end up plagerizing."

Plagiarizing who, exactly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If Wikipedia says something and you have read it, and it was an interesting point, you better cite it. Since it wasn't something that you actually came up with.

Edited September 14, 2006 by alanschu

[Blank]

Well, one could technically go onto wikipedia and write their own thing, and then take that information as from wikipedia, then cite it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your wikipedia link doesn't have valid references, then you should get smacked for it.

That's what should happen, but it doesn't.

[blue]

If wikipedia cites something, why not just use the cited material?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the point: Wiki is sometimes better at winnowing core source material than, say, Google. But at this point in its evolution nobody should cite Wiki itself as a source in academic or published works.

[~Di]

If wikipedia cites something, why not just use the cited material? ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly.

[alanschu]

If wikipedia cites something, why not just use the cited material? ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because sometimes it's not just a citation, but an actual point that utilizes a reference.

 

Just like an academic paper, encyclopedia, or (decent) textbook.

[~Di]

...A decent textbook still uses references as well.  So instead of using the textbook (which cites its reference), I should actually go and find the original reference (and hope it isn't a reference in and of itself?).

 

I'm probably not understanding you properly... but a textbook is in print; it has been edited and reviewed by educators, and the facts therein cannot be changed on a whim by every person who reads the book. I see no corrolation whatsoever between using the information in a textbook and using information that can be accessed and changed by everyone with an internet connection. Am I missing something here?

[~Di]

Because sometimes it's not just a citation, but an actual point that utilizes a reference.

 

Just like an academic paper, encyclopedia, or (decent) textbook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry, but without a citable source I do not know who is making this point or even if the point is valid, so I'm certainly not going to use it in my own studies or work. Others can with my blessing, I suppose, but I certainly wouldn't. I would make my own points based upon my own research into citable, reliable sources. *shrug*

[alanschu]

If you read a point in wikipedia, that uses an appropriate reference that you feel is a good point for your discussion, you should reference it.

 

If you don't bother citing it simply because it's wikipedia, and you still make use of that point, you're passing on someone else's idea as your own.

[blue]

If you don't bother citing it simply because it's wikipedia, and you still make use of that point, you're passing on someone else's idea as your own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go to the source if possible. Otherwise you're right: don't go to print.

 

With some arcane topics, it's problematic to efficiently find primary material. Wiki sometimes facilitates that by linking to respectable publications or organizations which themselves cite books, databases or contacts for experts in that field.

 

The strength of Wiki is quantity not quality. It's not peer-reviewed like Britannica, but it's a helluva lot broader (at least on pop culture and related topics). Think of Wiki as a tool not a source--as a phone book for information.

Edited September 14, 2006 by blue

[alanschu]

I'd also limit my wikipedia searches to typically not include current events and or highly disputed topics.

 

The thing is, after doing previous reading from print sources, I can see that Wikipedia's description of Fall Gelb is pretty much spot on.

[Colrom]

I think Di has got good points although I may have less regard for textbooks than she does.

 

Wiki is good for finding out what sources the folks who dominate an entry think are important. You need to assume that there are other sources also. Those who dominate an entry will generally not cite sources that lead to differing viewpoints. You have to find them elsewhere.

 

Now, there are some entries that are not notable - like the philips head screwdriver and the ALCO S2 diesel locomotive. The info in wiki on those topics is probably reliable and the cited sources may be very good too. Of course some loony may have gone and messed up those entries just to be a jerk. So maybe even those entries are cooked.

 

I have a problem with textbooks. Although they provide recommendations for further reading they don't generally cite sources for the information they contain. Further, the information they contain is so generalized that it is usually heavily politically influenced.

 

High School history textbooks books will generally not bother to mention some of the notable behaviors of Queen Elizabeth for example - presumably because it doesn't fit the story they are trying to tell. They will also not reference any serious books dealing with her.

 

Textbooks on topics like history are not even good source guides.

 

The more I think of them the more I believe wiki history may actually be better than textbooks on history.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Colrom