Thread: Wikipedia as a source: For or against?...

Well.....yes and no.

I think the credibility of Wikipedia depends largely on the subject.

If it is say a page about the Bohemian Tree Frog then I have no reason to think anyone is putting slanted, biased or inaccurate info on a tree dwelling amphibean.

However if it is a page about say the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then I am more skeptical since I know both sides have very different ideas of what is going on there.

Originally Posted by spotdogg

A lot of posters here accuse one another that 'Fox is not a viable source!' or 'MSNBC is not a viable source!'...I feel that Wikipedia is also not a viable source...I am a retired History Prof and I refused to allow Wikipedia to be used as a 'source' for any of my students...Using Wikipedia is not really doing research of any kind that I can see. Especially as it can be edited by its users...I have just always found it a lazy method of doing 'research' on any subject...It certainly is used a lot on this forum...Any thoughts?...

On many subjects a Wikipedia article is a great source... of sources. Thus it can be a 'lazy method of doing 'research' if the article is well documented.

Wikipedia is not a bad source, just should probably not be the only source (depending upon subject of course.)

That is true...It does lead one to decent research sources...But most people treat as the 'be all end all' source...That is disturbing to me...

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Wikipedia is not a bad source, just should probably not be the only source (depending upon subject of course.)

I agree...I have no problem with the actual sources cited in Wikipedia...But a lot of posters here seem to think whatever Wikipedia says, then it must be true...And, in addition to the laziness of using Wikipedia as a 'source', posters must delve in much deeper than that crap...

The question that came mind is 'Do postings in a political discussion forum need to be to the same standards as for academic credit papers?'

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

The question that came mind is 'Do postings in a political discussion forum need to be to the same standards as for academic credit papers?'

All I am saying is that if you wish to prove something, never use Wikipedia...It is just the lazy person's way to prove something, when it proves nothing at all...

Originally Posted by spotdogg

All I am saying is that if you wish to prove something, never use Wikipedia...It is just the lazy person's way to prove something, when it proves nothing at all...

I don't believe summarily dismissing Wikipedia is warranted.

Granted, you do have to read the article before you use it to make sure that it supports your position, or brings something more to the discussion. Many here are a bit tight on time, but enjoy these exchanges, and Wikipedia does suite the need and the convenience.

In regards to posters here and the forum, i have no real issue with the fact that it is used as a source. Just sourcing your materiel on the site is a good enough achievement for me, given how bad some of the thread creation got at one point.

We do have multiple staff members (admins) who are either in academia (professors) and some that also study along with the deputy dean of a university across 3 continents so i am relatively satisfied it passes the smell test for staff. If that changes, i will be sure to let you know Spotdogg.

There was a study done on Wiki and it showed that it doesn't have that much more mistakes on scientific type stuff than Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.

This article is from 2005 and I'm sure their credibility has only increased since then.

I take the facts and ignore the conclusions.
There are quite a number of facts in the world which are either not easily found or are interspersed with opinion.
For instance, did Clinton have a surplus?
The facts, which might include Accounting Rules, may lead an objective site to state that Clinton had a surplus.
The facts, which might only look at raw numbers in accounts, may lead an objective site to state Clinton did not have a surplus.

In my opinion, its very useful to identify sources especially if you are not familiar with a topic. In other words, it can be a great starting point. From it, you can find related literature which then leads to even more related literature.

So if someone was to write a paper and acknowledge wikipedia's use, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they should also be going to the published books and peer reviewed journals that they also directly used.

I use it all the time to verify math equations that I'm doing from memory which I need to double-check. I also use it for occasional quick-lookups of a small piece of information in a much larger article. For example, what if I quickly needed to know roughly what Dumortierite is? Wouldn't Wikipedia be a quick way to get a general idea of what it is?

Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

If it is say a page about the Bohemian Tree Frog then I have no reason to think anyone is putting slanted, biased or inaccurate info on a tree dwelling amphibean.

However if it is a page about say the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then I am more skeptical since I know both sides have very different ideas of what is going on there.

Pretty much, though in this day and age almost all topics can generate controversy. Not that you'd think it, but in our state if someone were to call a canned drink a "soda", all hell could break lose.

We do have standards for academic honesty though, so if someone intentionally starts a deceitful thread based on false purposes through a source known to either be false or say something else, then we'll zero it.

However if it is an issue of legitimate disagreement (whether or not global warming exists / is man made for example, whether there is an issue of health benefits to not eating meat etc) then it is fine to create a thread and start it citing a source that backs up an argument. we do ask that sources do not conflict the interest of the author of the thread, for example using your own materiel that you have written elsewhere, plagiarizing somebody else and their comments etc. (We had one poster infamously renown for this shit).

But if its incidental (for example due to some SEO abuse, a story about Tom Delay finally going to jail flooded Google the other day and it made a 3 year old story seem current) and someone starts a thread on it we wouldn't really penalize them for it, based on that any further than probably shutting the thread down.