Wikipedia, good source for OFFICIAL info, or not?

[stephie23]

Pretty much summed up in the title.

 

So most if not all academic institutions (including but not limited to University, College and Highschool) do not allow wikipedia to be used in assignments, essays, research projects etc. because of the open-source like content on the site.

 

How do you feel about this? Do you think it is in fact a reliable source?

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Ruto).

The topic was posted in the wrong area.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this topic.

Per the reason above, this topic has been MOVED from 'Neopets Debate' to 'Debate and Discussion'.

[hrtbrk]

I can go on it right now and change whatever I like to whatever I like.

 

I'm thinking a big fat no.

 

If you're a solid student, you would search around for the most information you could find, not just take it from one 'source' and call it a day.

[stephie23]

I agree with that statement! :) If anyone can just go on and edit it, then how do we know the information is correct (even if the person thinks its correct.)

 

In University there are things you have to assess before a source is considered reliable. Including credibility of the source (do they have a PHD, Masters, expert in their field etc.). If you don't know who's posting it, how do you assess thier credibility!

[Guest Severus Snape]

I completely disagree. Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources out there. You really don't know what's going behind the scenes. In case you're trying to edit something, there are reviewers that just swoop down upon you to revert any changes you made unless you are a good and trustworthy writer, and have a registered account. People that anonymously contribute are generally deemed "trolls" and quickly their changes are reverted.

 

Some pages are locked because of vandalism (I remember the SQL injection one was because Neopets' players were going there and trolling the page with irrelevant information like: "A noob hacked Neopets, etc...").

 

There are sometimes contests about games and consoles on GBATemp.net (a DS/GBA/Wii/etc... gaming website), where you can win prizes, and you HAVE to use Wikipedia for that (it's like the only way to find reliable information). Consequently, many people grab the info for themselves and edit it to another false response. That's why you always have to check the edit logs to see if someone is trying to fool you.

 

In the academic world, teachers/professors don't allow you to use Wikipedia not because it isn't reliable, but due to the content being quite accurate and written in a non-biased way (most of the times) that students just opt to copy and paste directly without any kind of posterior editing. That way, plagiarism is clearly noticeable and the increase of people doing this has led them to "ban" or limit the use of Wikipedia almost entirely.

 

I understand that there are more reliable sources out there, but most they are paid (like an encyclopedia) or just have too much information on the matter at hand. I advise you to look at Wikipedia first to condense your information (NOT copy) and then proceed to looking at other, more complete websites, to broaden your scope and write up an original paper or thesis.

[Xepha]

Actually, Wikipedia wasn't banned by my professors and teachers. But, they wanted us to cross it with at least another (paper) source. They would not allow us to only use the Internet and electronic documents when we had to write papers. So we had to find a book, a magazine or a paper encyclopedia to put in references as well.

 

In general, Wikipedia is rich. It has a lot of informations and the content integration is well done. I also use it to translate some complex concept. (Search for the name plus Wiki in French, then I select English in the language and I just saved a heck of time).

 

Sometimes, Wikipedia as a lot of sources mentionned throughout the article, and you can decide to go and check them too to get more inforation. It's not a totally bias environment just because it's opened-source :P

[Viridian]

Wikipedia is usually quite reliable.

 

I'd say, yes it's a good place for getting information, as long as you check the information you get from it by checking other sources.

 

Of course it's true anyone can add something in to Wikipedia, but it will all be reviewed and if a honest person wants to edit a page they can edit all mistakes someone else made out.

[Vixensykerd]

It's ok as an overview, but not as accurate as some other places. For example, when I was doing an A level module on the Dutch Revolt our class went on there, and it was all pretty ok apart from some stuff being in the wrong order and some dates wrong, so we re-wrote it for homework and submitted it.

 

On the other hand, I know somebody who revised from it for their other A level, and got a C (60%), so it can't be that bad

[C.A.V.]

Wikipedia is a good sorce of information, depending on who edits the page. People are smarter than to post stupid stuff in the pages or inapproprate subjects.

[Unstream]

Wikipedia is actually a really good source to use, though it shouldn't be the only source you use (but that rule applies to anything you use on the internet). Though information can be edited, people often review it, as stated above. It's also very handy when it comes to getting to know a topic, because if the topic refers to something else, there's usually a link to it (like if you're researching the molecules, there'll probably be a link in the article to atoms), which is really helpful.

 

Wikipedia is also a lot more current than some books you may be using. It's constantly updated with new finds and discoveries, so in some ways, it can be more reliable than an encyclopedia.

 

All in all, I consider Wikipedia as just any normal source, except a lot bigger.

[Lion]

Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source, in my eyes, but as it has been mentioned in most of the posts above mine, it shouldn't be the ONLY source you use. At my school, we kinda have to use Wikipedia, as most of the other sites have been blocked, and our books in the library are quite outdated.

 

Wikipedia is updated every day, while a lot of books in your local library even, would probably be from a couple of years ago, or in my school's case -- from more than a decade ago. If someone puts false information on a page, then it would probably be updated a couple of hours later, if it is a popular page, or maybe a week at the most.

 

Wikipedia is a source that I use everyday, so it can't be too bad.

 

If you want more prove that it's reliable, look at HBK's post below Stephies last post.

[stephie23]

I suppose really it depends on the information. I use it all the time for little things (like looking into something on a favourite tv show.) But I avoid it when looking for information on an academic front. (although sometimes I do use it to go through the sources it has located at the bottom).

 

I see your point on how if its a popular page then the information is more likely to be correct, than one not as popular. The issue with that though is.. how do you know your topic is popular enough for people to care to correct incorrect information. And what about if you're just unlucky enough to be on a topic that someone messed with before it gets corrected.. so is it fair to say its not always reliable...

[hrtbrk]

Well, the top 50 searches from 09 and 08 have been released and it doesn't look like too many people use it for research LOL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wiki...9-and-2008.html

---

Here, we round up this year's most-viewed Wikipedia articles, according to the website Wikistics:

1) Wiki (131,383 page hits per day)

2) The Beatles (111,896)

3) Michael Jackson (79,734)

4) Favicon.ico (78,077)

5) YouTube (72,318)

6) Wikipedia (52,542)

7) Barack Obama (49,401)

8) Deaths in 2009 (48,758)

9) United States (46,545)

10) Facebook (42,679)

11) Current events portal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events] (40,962)

12) World War II (29,736)

13) Twitter (28,511)

14) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (28,395)

15) Slumdog Millionaire (26,755)

16) Lil Wayne (26,210)

17) Adolf Hitler (25,481)

18) India (25,380)

19) Transformers 2 (24,842)

20) Scrubs (TV series) (24,758)

21) Sex (24,754)

22) Rhianna (24,670)

23) United Kingdom (24,300)

24) Abrham Lincoln (23,743)

25) Heroes (TV series) (23,569)

26) Watchmen (film) (23,544)

27) Lady GaGa (23,376)

28) Star Trek (film) (22,990)

29) 2009 Swine Flu outbreak (22,968)

30) Featured content portal (22,829)

31) Megan Fox (22,573)

32) Naruto (22,573)

33) Australia (22,544)

34) Canada (22,437)

35) World War I (22,307)

36) cave chia (22,295)

37) List of House episodes (21,950)

38) Japan (21,797)

39) Martin Luther King Jr (21,786)

40) Miley Cyrus (21,724)

41) Robert Pattinson (21,515)

42) Deadpool (comics) (21,264)

43) Twilight (2008 film) (21,158)

44) Windows 7 (21,018)

45) House (TV series) (20,882)

46) Terminator Salvation (20,743)

47) Kristen Stewart (20,538)

48) Internet Movie Database (20,422)

49) 2012 (20,347)

50) X-Men Origins: Wolverine

[stephie23]

That really doesnt surprise me. Its pretty much a giant data base of information collected from tons of different sources, so when looking up say 'transformers 2' it happens to come up quite high on google's search list

 

It really is a very helpful site for those sorts of things!

[Princess Angel]

I would say not entirely. Any guy or gal off the street could go and edit Wiki so I would say no. BUT - Wiki does seem to be very reliable and is the most common referred to and the biggest encyclopedia on the Net so that could be a yes. It's hard to say for sure.

[stephie23]

ya I should have included a "in some cases" bubble. I tried to add it after, but you either can't, or I just couldn't figure it out! :( sorry guys!

[Strawberri]

I think Wiki is a cool form of communicating. It's not necessarily more reliable than talking to any random person on the street, but it has so many people constantly monitoring, editing and updating it so in a way it's like how knowledge itself is formed: it starts with one person's opinion, and then more and more people contribute to it and build on it and refine it. So yeah, any one piece of information isn't necessarily correct, but the share volume of edits refines it. It would make a great thesis topic!

[stephie23]

Thats true... it is very interesting, its like a big network of people collaborating on something... and it can be helpful (even if not always accurate)

[Unstream]

Wikipedia may prove better than many other sites though. Like I have to do a short study on Phrenology. I googled it, and used to first two sites on the list. Wikipedia, and Skepdics. Wikipedia seemed more thorough and less biased than the other website, though there is some disagreement between both of those sites, so I'm going to have to use another source.

[Agnes Birdsong]

Wikipedia is great for getting a general feel for what a subject is about and the sides of any controversy that surrounds it.

More thorough information should be found in other places.

[linda]

So most if not all academic institutions (including but not limited to University, College and Highschool) do not allow wikipedia to be used in assignments, essays, research projects etc. because of the open-source like content on the site.

-

Reliable? Maybe 90% of the time. And that's pretty good if you just want to find some quite info about something. The 90% is due to the fact that even if someone changes a piece of info to something random, another person will see it and say...wait that's not right and change it back. Generally the power of masses will eventually come to the right answer.

 

The only reason why I dislike wiki is because it loves to use technical/medical jargon. I can't search up neurotransmitter without a dictionary at hand T_T. There's an article about this on wired. Feel free to search it up :)

[stephie23]

The only reason why I dislike wiki is because it loves to use technical/medical jargon. I can't search up neurotransmitter without a dictionary at hand

-----

LOL!

 

well typically medical sites are all like this, very rediculous if you ask me. Its not just wikipedia, although at my university the one program we have is really good at breaking down medical jargon. :)

[linda]

Really? On PLoS, even they use much less jargon than wiki ==' I think people just like pasting books there. XD

[Masaryk]

Wikipedia is a great source of GENERAL information, but that can be said of any encyclopaedia. Multiple independent studies have indicated that Wikipedia is as accurate as the published encyclopaedias, so I'm usually pretty unconcerned about its accuracy. The changes to pages are usually very well moderated, so when vandalism does occur, it is usually fixed within 24 hours.

 

However, unlike the published encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is not constrained by physical parameters, such as page count. Therefore, there is a LOT more detail to the information available when compaired to its published competitors. I find that some topics are way over my head, like if I'm trying to look up some math info for the Lenny Conundrum; all I want is a formula, not how it is derived.

 

So, Wikipedia is a great place to look for a bit of information on a given topic, but it still not enough information for a college/university-level paper. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources of information, which are great starting places for finding info. It's a good place to start, since all the information has citations from secondary sources (research people have done using other peoples' research as a starting point), and those cited sources can be located and used. Most university-level sources should come from published journals, though.

 

So, my conclusions:

 

Wikipedia is great if you want to learn a bit about something for personal interest. It's fairly detailed and correct, most of the time. However, if you need to write a paper for school, Wikipedia is a good starting place for finding out a bit of background on a topic and getting a list of decent primary and secondary sources that you can use for your research.

[linda]

Wikipedia is a great source of GENERAL information, but that can be said of any encyclopaedia. Multiple independent studies have indicated that Wikipedia is as accurate as the published encyclopaedias, so I'm usually pretty unconcerned about its accuracy. The changes to pages are usually very well moderated, so when vandalism does occur, it is usually fixed within 24 hours.

 

However, unlike the published encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is not constrained by physical parameters, such as page count. Therefore, there is a LOT more detail to the information available when compaired to its published competitors. I find that some topics are way over my head, like if I'm trying to look up some math info for the Lenny Conundrum; all I want is a formula, not how it is derived.

 

So, Wikipedia is a great place to look for a bit of information on a given topic, but it still not enough information for a college/university-level paper. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources of information, which are great starting places for finding info. It's a good place to start, since all the information has citations from secondary sources (research people have done using other peoples' research as a starting point), and those cited sources can be located and used. Most university-level sources should come from published journals, though.

 

So, my conclusions:

 

Wikipedia is great if you want to learn a bit about something for personal interest. It's fairly detailed and correct, most of the time. However, if you need to write a paper for school, Wikipedia is a good starting place for finding out a bit of background on a topic and getting a list of decent primary and secondary sources that you can use for your research.

 

You took the words...right out of my teacher's mouth ;) That's the speech he gave last year when we were doing our summatives.

[stephie23]

Wikipedia is a great source of GENERAL information, but that can be said of any encyclopaedia. Multiple independent studies have indicated that Wikipedia is as accurate as the published encyclopaedias, so I'm usually pretty unconcerned about its accuracy. The changes to pages are usually very well moderated, so when vandalism does occur, it is usually fixed within 24 hours.

 

However, unlike the published encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is not constrained by physical parameters, such as page count. Therefore, there is a LOT more detail to the information available when compaired to its published competitors. I find that some topics are way over my head, like if I'm trying to look up some math info for the Lenny Conundrum; all I want is a formula, not how it is derived.

 

So, Wikipedia is a great place to look for a bit of information on a given topic, but it still not enough information for a college/university-level paper. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources of information, which are great starting places for finding info. It's a good place to start, since all the information has citations from secondary sources (research people have done using other peoples' research as a starting point), and those cited sources can be located and used. Most university-level sources should come from published journals, though.

 

So, my conclusions:

 

Wikipedia is great if you want to learn a bit about something for personal interest. It's fairly detailed and correct, most of the time. However, if you need to write a paper for school, Wikipedia is a good starting place for finding out a bit of background on a topic and getting a list of decent primary and secondary sources that you can use for your research.

 

I could not agee more!! :) And I never even considered the physical contraint thing.. good point.

 

and you made me think of another thing when you talked about formulas --> I have totally used wikipedia to help understand some advanced stats crap for school --> it was QUITE helpful!