|
| #1 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | According to wikipedia,Wikipedia (pronunciation Spoken content icon) is a free,[3] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a blend of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it is the biggest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[5][6] *
*Note--liable to change at any time for any reason by any person.
So, wiki. Viable resource, or an unreliable hack?
You decide! |
|
|
| #2 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | I've always been one who generally believes that Wikipedia is an excellent resource, article/subject pending.
Obviously, an unfinished/new/article about upcoming stuff is going to be rather inaccurate. But the older articles with a significant amount of edits are extremely likely to be extremely accurate. And given that a lot of articles are sourced, yeah. |
|
|
| #3 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | I usually use Wikipedia as a source for information when I need info on just random stuff or even school work. However, it was banned to be used as a source by my English professor at my university because of the fact the anyone can edit it, and we might get the wrong information. |
|
|
| #4 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | I think wikipedia is a great source, especially if you don't already know much about what you are researching. It's a great place to begin, because it links to other resources that may be considered more reliable. I trust wikipedia as much as I would a print encyclopedia. |
|
|
| #5 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | It"s helped me for most of my assignments at school |
|
|
| #6 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | Wikipedia and Google are omniputent beings.
Worship them. |
|
|
| #7 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | Wikipedia isn't a messed up site or anything. They dont really go around messing up just anything except i heard they messed with the election candidates. They replaced Hillary's picture with a walrus. |
|
|
| #8 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #6 by Chidori | Reply | got that right.
google and wiki are the ultimate reaserch places anywere.
just type anything you want and it will come up.Rather than going across town to get a book. |
|
|
| #9 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | lol at everyone thinking Wikipedia is credible. |
|
|
| #10 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | Most of wikipedia is accurate, I think, although I know quite few people who absolutely hate it because they says it's really unreliable, which I think is a bit unfair.
I've used wikipedia for coursework and it's helped loads, and I use it some times for stuff that I'd like to know, eg: about an anime (the episodes lists). I think its as good as a printed encyclopedia and it's a good place to begin, since it gives links and stuff for further research. |
|
|
| #11 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #9 by TheRealFolkBlues | Reply | | Wikipedia is highly accurate for the most part, if you try and edit something to make it incorrect it will have been changed back within an hour or so. For every dick eye who wants to try at make it wrong there are many more people who want to keep it correct. Wikipedia is your friend, it's like a robot that does your homework for you. |
|
|
| #12 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | It might be reliable, I'm surely not denying that. But it should never be used as a source because it is so easily edited. If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them. |
|
|
| #13 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | If you actually look at their policy discussion pages, the users who actually run wikipedia regularly are zealots about accuracy and neutral point of view. It's fascinating.
They also run so many anti-vandal bots that it's nearly impossible for people to vandalize it anymore. |
|
|
| #14 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | It might be reliable, I'm surely not denying that. But it should never be used as a source because it is so easily edited. If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them.
This is the very reason it is good a s a resource. People are constantly updating pages with newer, more accurate information. Oh, sure, you get the vandals and/or rabid fan(boys/girls), but on the whole, it's probably one of the best sources you'll find for anything. |
|
|
| #15 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | If I were a teacher and some kids tried to use Wikipeida as a source for research I'd fail them.
You would make a pretty aweful teacher then. Failing children because they gave you the correct information. |
|
|
| #16 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #15 by Chidori | Reply | I DON'T MEAN FAIL THE ENTIRE CLASS.
Fail the assignment. |
|
|
| #17 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | I think Wikipedia is definitely a good place to start your research and to find out something for the heck of it. It also really helps if you're looking up stuff about TV shows and other subjects that generally don't have their own articles written about them.
But I can see why it can't be used as a credible source. Not just because someone can edit it and you might catch the page before it gets reedited, but because you don't know who wrote the article; it's all anonymous. I know it seems like a trivial thing to worry about but there are better, more specific articles written by people in a certain profession and are actually published. It's much easier to site a source like that instead of Wikipedia, especially since it does change a lot and the paraphrase/quote you got from it may not be there anymore, whereas an actually published article will most likely remain the same.
Like I said, it's a great starting point for research, but if you're writing an academic essay, you should expand from there because Wikipedia probably won't even give you all the research and specifics you need; it'll help give you some ideas, but don't just stay there. |
|
|
| #18 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | I use Wikipedia for school projects all the time. However, I don't take the information directly from it. I find some info, then Google that info for better information about that info.
Everybody wins. |
|
|
| #19 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #16 by Sophie | Reply | | That's exactly what i was referring to, not once did I mention failing the entire class. |
|
|
| #20 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #19 by Chidori | Reply | | Well then it\'s obvious you\'ve never been to University. Maybe high schools let Wikipedia pass as a valid source of information, but a University wont. I love wikipedia, don\'t get me wrong I really do. But it\'s just not something you can use in research or to prove a point. It\'s potentially far to unreliable. It\'s greatest strength is also it\'s greatest weakness. |
|
|
| #21 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | Any encyclopedia could then be considered "potentially unreliable". The fact is that it is reliable. The "Anybody can edit it" logic works both ways, but there are far, far many more people adding accurate content than those just adding in moronic crap. And just as many people are removing the moronic crap. The fact is that it can never be written off simply because of that fact. If one were to argue about pages with "Needs sources" or such, then that may be different. But, overall, it's more reliable and up-to-date than any other encyclopedia. |
|
|
| #22 Posted 6 months ago | Reply | | It sucks though when you spend over an hour writing an article about the plot of a video game only for it to get deleted because someone thought it was far too long. |
|
|
| #23 Posted 6 months ago, in reply to post #21 by DarkWarrior | Reply | | I've actually heard that encyclopedias aren't the best sources anyways, and in fact not recommended. |
|
|
| #24 Posted 5 months ago | Reply | Generally if anything is inaccurate on wiki, it's fairly noticeable, either it sounds farfetched or has no citation to source it. People argue the 'anyone can put anything' idea, but anything written there sticks out like a sore thumb.
The thing that pissed me off was the decision to remove trivia sections. Those were the highlights of the article for me. I love finding out facts about the movie that are interesting and make you think for a second...but no, apparently it's no good, and information in trivia sections has to be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Well that's just inconvienient, I don' t want to read the entire 'character conception' paragraph (for example) just to know a small fact. It's easier when they're grouped together. |
|
|
| #25 Posted 5 months ago, in reply to post #24 by Prodigs | Reply | | Yeah, those sections were sick. I found out about Robin Williams' love for Evangelion from one of those things. |
|
|
| #26 Posted 5 months ago | Reply | Wikipedia is a great source of information, and a testament ot the power of non-profit, internet based volunteer collaborative efforts. For the most part, Wikipedia is accurate, because in addition to the sheer number of people cntributing information to the site, inaccurate information can be removed by anyone as soon as it is detected.
It's odd, normally when I read peoples' discussions of Wikipedia, there's a small but significant handfull who cricicize it for being inaccurate simply because anyone can edit it, without taking into account the actual facts...but really I don't see any of that here. Well done guys, I'm very pleasantly surprised by your thoughtfulness and sensibility.
Although it's true, Wikipedia should never be used as a source for any sort of research paper, because it is not guaranteed that the information is accurate. Interestingly enough, I'd say that the people who would know about this the most are Wikipedia editors...what's actually pretty interesting is that Wikipedia has pretty specific standards for what can be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, so by Wikipedia's own standards, Wikipedia would not be considered a reliable source (that is, a site like WIkipedia could never be used as a source for a WIkipedia article).
Also, Jimmy Wales often brings up an interesting point, which is that when doing research papers, any sort of encyclopedia is generally not accepted as a source, so whether or not Wikipedia is an accurate enough encyclopedia is actually irrelevant.
And as far as Wikipedia being used in high schools, I'd say that the main problem is that schools don't teach students how to do actual research. Teachers fear Wikipedia mainly because they know their students are not capable of finding credible sources, or actually distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable sources, so they ban Wikipedia, or sometimes the internet altogether, in the hopes that students will be forced to find sources that have a higher chance of being reliable.
Interestingly enough though, just because a source is published, let's say in a book, that doesn't mean it's accurate. I've actually read books where I've found information I know to be untrue. So really the problem in terms of research is not Wikipedia, but is instead ignorance on the part of young people doing research, stemming from a faulty education system. |
|
|
| #27 Posted 5 months ago, in reply to post #26 by Tatterdemalion | Reply | Yeah they banned wikipedia at my school
The ban lasted I think less than a week
We are now allowed to use wikipedia again although the year 12's have been warned that it could be potentially unreliable and should only be used as a starting point.
Personally I don't see why they banned it in the first place. |
|
|
| #28 Posted 5 months ago | Reply | I think that Wikipedia is a good for pop culture and quickly looking up things. I've had Profs. say yes it is a good starting point. But the fact that anyone can edit the thing makes checking to see if a student has plagerized woulde be a real pain. Worse some idiot could go in and delelet the info you quoted or something.
Also it's an encyclopedia the don't want you quoteing those things in if you are in or past highschool.
I will admit that I did use the information on the site to help me find the right original air dates of episodes of doctor who I was writing about for a paper. I mean they summarys ever always every good for that show. And to MLA a tv show you seem to need an airdate.
I will take the time to say that citeing a paper is evil and I can never seem to do it write because they keep changinging how to cite things. |
|
|
| #29 Posted 5 months ago | Reply | But the fact that anyone can edit the thing makes checking to see if a student has plagerized woulde be a real pain.
If you're using a certain revision as a source, and you know that that revision is correct, you can get a link to that specific revision, and no matter what happens to the article, that link & the information on it would stay the same. So that's more or less irrelevant. |
|
|
| #30 Posted 5 months ago | Reply | | Those who say that Wikipedia is unreliable, has anyone actually read an article? Every single one of them is a dang essay! |
|
