No, it's not. See my comments above. I'm glad to see college has taught you the definition of "retard" and how to censor yourself.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is Wikipedia often considered an unreliable source?
- Thread starter spinnerlys
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're missing the whole point of research. The REASON why academics have to use books and journals is primarily because these books and research papers have been written by people credited for their work and who are experts in their field according to their community. So whatever they say is pretty much accepted to a certain degree. In addition to this, they have models and frameworks they've implemented which are widely used.
You're missing out on lots of valuable information. Many of these "outdated" books offered primary research for many of the articles published in online journals today. Its not that hard to find information in a book, provided you can read a table of contents and then a chapter.
Wikipedia isn't reliable for any paper, whether its 3-5 pages or 100-300 pages. The point of a 3-5 page paper is to prepare you for writing longer research papers, not to be some easy exercise in how well you can use Wikipedia's search function.
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out, but a Nature magazine study found Wikipedia to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica in their testing.
I would hardly suggest relying on Wiki for anything crucial (but then, one should never rely on a single source for anything crucial), but for forums and casual debates? It's credible enough. The argument that "Wikipedia isn't reliable because it's user editable" holds very little water, as demonstrated by independent tests like Nature's.
I would hardly suggest relying on Wiki for anything crucial (but then, one should never rely on a single source for anything crucial), but for forums and casual debates? It's credible enough. The argument that "Wikipedia isn't reliable because it's user editable" holds very little water, as demonstrated by independent tests like Nature's.
If it's cited in Wiki I'll go to the source for confirmation, but stuff that isn't cited I take w/a grain of salt. For common knowledge it works out great usually but in my experience the more in-depth you get the quicker Wiki dries up and the more likely you are to find errors (intentional or not) because the people who know a lot about that niche don't spend their time editing Wikipedia.
Lethal
Lethal
Well you've kind of missed the point of writing papers in college.
When I'm writing a research paper I'll usually read the wikipedia article on the subject and then move on to JSTOR and the library. Being able to quickly flip through a book is way faster and more effective than trying to page through an article online, and you can dogear pages and stuff. I regularly find things that weren't quite accurate on wikipedia when I'm reading more in depth articles and books. Using wikipedia is always a gamble simply because you run the risk of making a completely false statement right out of the wiki article, like "William McKinley's wife Emma..." just because some random person messed with the article.
Forget about writing about political figures or corporations...their articles always reek of sly editing.
That said, wikipedia is my go-to source for finding more information about basic things. It's just not an acceptable source for writing a paper if you really want to do a good job of it.
Because unless what is written is cited to an official book, it can not be a certified fact.
Our lecturers state that if you use wikipedia as a citation on any of your work, it's an automatic fail for the paper. Which is fair enough, wikipedia is a lazy route, there is a reason universities invest in libraries...
On a lighter note, if you're clever, you can get from any wikipedia article to Adolf Hitler in 5 clicks or less, have fun
Our lecturers state that if you use wikipedia as a citation on any of your work, it's an automatic fail for the paper. Which is fair enough, wikipedia is a lazy route, there is a reason universities invest in libraries...
On a lighter note, if you're clever, you can get from any wikipedia article to Adolf Hitler in 5 clicks or less, have fun
For medical issues, I trust WebMD or HealthCentral more than I do Wiki. But overall, what I have found on Wiki on many topics does click with sites that are dedicated to one subject, such as a WebMD.com.
If I look at a skewed source, such as a politically far left or far right wing site, they are a jumbled mess compared to anything I have seen on Wiki. If I was doing a book report on Ronald Reagan, I would probably use Wiki as a guide before I would use Fox News.
If I look at a skewed source, such as a politically far left or far right wing site, they are a jumbled mess compared to anything I have seen on Wiki. If I was doing a book report on Ronald Reagan, I would probably use Wiki as a guide before I would use Fox News.
wrong. Wikipedia is not a creditable source for those papers and in 4 years of school you should know that. Hell it is sad that you have not figure out some thing about those papers.
Those 3-5 page paper I and my roommate and GF have all had to write while in school we knew wikipedia was not a legit source for citations. For those paper wikipedia is a great spring board into starting the research. The wiki page general gave us some of the basic information we were looking for to help us find more in dept stuff. Also we learned to look at the citation on the wiki page. We would use those citation and go back to the source material and look it up in there. We would site the infomation from those location.
Really 4 years of school and you have not learned how to use wiki correctly or how to use it for research it is rather sad...
While I use wikipedia for all sorts of stuff, I also take it with a grain of salt.
The design of wikis really don't lead itself to being credible sources that can be used in academia or any where else. There's been too many stories of articles that were inaccurate or entered just to mess with people.
The design of wikis really don't lead itself to being credible sources that can be used in academia or any where else. There's been too many stories of articles that were inaccurate or entered just to mess with people.
Exactly right.
Besides, papers are not just a regurgitation of facts, are they?
Wiki isn't going to give you your own, personal insight into the subject.
And that is the real work.
Exactly right.
Besides, papers are not just a regurgitation of facts, are they?
Wiki isn't going to give you your own, personal insight into the subject.
And that is the real work.
Very true. My GF would agree on the fact wiki is nothing more than a tool to get a general understanding of a subject or to help you find sources. During her thesis she used wiki a few times when some of the things in her research was a little confusing. She would look up the term and that would give her an idea what they were paper she was reading was talking about. That or help her find some sources for her research.
My lecturers are not fond of Wikipedia. Every assignment we're given we're told very specifically not to go anywhere near it and never to cite it as a source. Instead they usually point out the window to the library and hint that it might actually be more use than the internet.
Agreed. Something I might read as a very rough overview of a topic. I tend to use it more to understand something I've read online or in a newspaper than for anything coursework related though.
Somebody got failed last year for using Wikipedia as their main source of info (which is more than they deserved for being that bloody stupid)