Wikipedia

I have noticed that wikipedia gets used a lot as a source of reference.
Do you ever worry that someone like darksidzz, sandy, or I wrote the dang article? I mean, the article is only as good as its author right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Admittedly Wiki does have that as both a fault and a strength, it's articles are both written and edited by those that use it. However I would never suggest that Wiki should be used by "Minor" academics as there was this one time that a particular Wikipage had been violated by a picture someones Penis & Testicles.

So if you are a parent or a Dean/Headmaster I would actually suggest you put wiki on your net nanny block list and utilise a paid for alternative like Encyclopædia Britannica because at least you won't get such defacements (unless some vulgar hacker group just wants to prove different).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most uni would probably rip you apart for sourcing Wiki. Often bias as it's indeed only as legit as the author allows it to be. Quick reference is okay I suppose but just be openminded the potential that it might not be completely accurate for deep arguments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is it an acceptable reference site for SciForums? How do I know the person I'm talking to didn't change it to what they believe just to win an argument? (that seems VERY important here!! lol)

 

you're right not to trust it Bob. The other week I blieve they had Gordon brown as a reptile or something to that effect.

 

Aha! I knew it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think people exaggerate the abuse of Wikipedia. I've found it to be very reliable on the whole. Although I would never cite a Wikipedia article as a reference there's usually a list of references at the bottom of the article that links to actual scientific papers or news reports. Those I would reference in a paper of my own.

And really, in any university level work you should never rely on a single source for information. The more sources you compare the easier it is to spot the false or questionable material.

 

If you're halfway knowledgable to begin with, you can spot errors or fallacies in wiki pages. Plus, I always check at least 3 or 4 other sources or sites to ensure they have the same information as wiki before I post it as a source here.

 

Wikipedia should not be used as a reference form controversial topics. I have seen it used numerous times this way on the forum.

 

I agree that the abuse is VERY exaggerated. And also that verifying ANY information through several independent sources is the only reasonable way to gain confidence in material found anywhere.

And in Wiki's defence, you need to note the drastic changes they've put in place. Initally, just anyone could write or edit any article whatsoever. (And a lot of those early articles haven't yet been verified/purged.) BUT several weeks ago they instituted a policy that writers MUST produce credentials that show they have knowledge of the subjects they choose to write about. And those articles are now verified by trusted members. It's becoming more and more reliable every single day.

Note that that still does not preclude verifying anything you read but at least it big improvement over the past policy and makes it better than before.

 

I agree with Xelios. Many pages and especially the significant ones are monitored by hundreds of people and read by 10000's. Try changing something at a random somewhat significant article. If what you change is unfounded bullshit, I guarantee that it will be changed back within the minute. There is also a thing called wikipedia quality standard. All notable statements should have a credible source.

 

I always triple check any information that I find on the web and deem important.

 

Bullshit - it's a great source - in particular with online books.

 

The trouble with encyclopedias of any kind is that they all borrow from each other, and they all repeat the same narrow band of facts or fallacies. There is no substitute for going to actual sources. Secondary would be books written by scholars with access to those sources. I believe, and I am open to contradiction, that independent analysis of Wiki and the EB have not come out that much differently in terms of accuracy. The EB is not open to vandalism, so should be far better.