Wikipedia... not a good resource..

[911Diver]

I am sure some of you know but others may not. Wikipedia is a not place to find accurate information for research. Anyone can go on there and edit anything they want.

"Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.".... from their website.

I am not saying that all information is not accurate from there, but would rather trust a different source than Wikipedia. I am a grad student and have been writing papers for what seems like forever... All of my professors will not take Wikipedia as a source for my research papers... for anything at all really.

Please take this for what it is.. information only. I am just trying to help those who look to the internet for information, you may not get the facts from Wikipedia..

Thanks..

 

[Charlie99]

While Wikipedia is not a PRIMARY source, it is a very useful one.

I find Wikipedia an excellent place to research stuff. Most articles have a good list of references at the end. Of course, you should always be leery of trusting THOSE references too.

Hopefully your professors don't let you quote any sort of encyclopedia as a source either. Do they?

 

[Warthaug]

While wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, I've found that the information it contains is as good, if not better, than what you find in traditional encyclopedias - at least in my field (sciences).

The one thing you've apparently forgotten is that wikipedia does have self-correcting mechanisms, through which inaccurate data can be removed.

As it turns out, a few comparisons of wikipedia with more traditional sources of information have been conducted, and the results look good for wikipedia:

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows

That said, as someone who now teaches (and marks) graduate-level material, I would not accept wikipedia (or an encyclopedia) as a source. You should be tracking down the primary source for your citations.

Bryan

 

[911Diver]

Thank you. I was not aware of the research out there on this matter. I was going by what I was told and should have researched more on the matter. Again, thank you.

As it turns out, a few comparisons of wikipedia with more traditional sources of information have been conducted, and the results look good for wikipedia:

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts
Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows

Bryan

 

[DennisS]

It's great for a quick lookup. I don't think I'd use it as a reference for any type of paper

 

[deco_martini]

Wikipedia is a great source on many topics. Most people tend to malign it when the facts it presents disagree with their preconceived notions or their non-fact based points of view.

Moderation to keep non-fact based material off the site has gotten more successful over the years. There has been some drama with edit-wars in the past.

I have no qualms about using most wikipedia information as a primary information source as long as it is itself properly cited.

However....... years ago I observed the wikipedia page for Hulk Hogan at that time was almost 30 pages of content and the one for George Washington was about 3. The problem with having user submission content generation is that topics like Star Trek or other things that appeal to nerds get covered more in-depth.

 

[mike_s]

Anyone can go on Wikipedia and edit any subject and make stuff up in there. I'm not surprised that your professors won't accept it as a source.

 

[ekremer]

Anyone can go on Wikipedia and edit any subject and make stuff up in there. I'm not surprised that your professors won't accept it as a source.

And made up stuff will be quickly reverted back (historically within hours) by the dedicated users who pretty much police the site. Remember if you see something wrong on Wikipedia fix it

 

[mike_s]

Makes you wonder why Wikipedia wouldn't let users add him being caught in a hotel room with his mistress....

Wikipedia finally allowed the content to be edited in (just 2 days ago), but only limited the scandal to a few lines. They then locked down the page so it couldn't be edited.


see
Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal | NewsBusters.org

Wikipedians Wrestle Over John Edwards Love-Child Rumor | Threat Level from Wired.com

Wikipedia John Edwards Page Now 'Protected' From Editing | NewsBusters.org

 

[mike_s]

One more thing... when the USS Oriskany was being sunk, Wikipedia used the term that "radical divers" were trying to sink her. It was written by someone who had a very negative opinion about sinking her as as dive site.

It's been cleaned up now... but it was that way for a while.