NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki


This is interesting, especially given wikipedia has, on average, the same number of inaccuracies as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Actually, Wikipedia has fewer inaccuracies than Britannica does.

so now you copy the wiki article only now get the sources from the bottom and say you used the sites...

:eek: I outsmarted a professor in less than 10 seconds by God were all doomed!

We are not allowed to use it here, due to its unreliability, because people can edit it. Or so the school says.

I've been told since my earliest days at Ohio State that wikipedia is uncitable.

Actually, Wikipedia has fewer inaccuracies than Britannica does.

That report was done about 5 years ago i believe.

I've been told since my earliest days at Ohio State that wikipedia is uncitable.

I certainly wouldn't accept it as a source for any paper my students turned in. If you can find it in Wikipedia, you can follow the source links at the bottom of the page is how I look at it.

Nazz, I don't understand that logic. Why is Wikipedia, which can be edited to correct inaccuracies, less credible than several of those source pages...which can remain unedited and inaccurate? Unless the article says NPOV conflict, or any other warnings, it should be perfectly fine to use...

Wikipedia articles are normally written by amatures, who get their sources from professionals who study that particular topic for a living. It would be better to use that then a breif summary of what the source says.

Nazz, I don't understand that logic. Why is Wikipedia, which can be edited to correct inaccuracies, less credible than several of those source pages...which can remain unedited and inaccurate? Unless the article says NPOV conflict, or any other warnings, it should be perfectly fine to use...
Because it can be edited to say that someone, say you, was involved with the Kennedy assassination and not be changed for months, or that elephants are doing something silly, or whatever.

The study was only on scientific subjects, 2+x=y kind of stuff. That leaves a whole lot of other entries where, not so much.

But ultimately, what the fuck are you doing still using an encyclopedia for your college level class? Step it up, man...

Nazz, I don't understand that logic. Why is Wikipedia, which can be edited to correct inaccuracies, less credible than several of those source pages...which can remain unedited and inaccurate? Unless the article says NPOV conflict, or any other warnings, it should be perfectly fine to use...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Generally, no encyclopedias are accepted as cited sources, so it makes sense, especially considering Wikipedia is pretty much the best encyclopedia on the market today and to single it out would be to deprive people of an excellent source of information.

Because it can be edited to say that someone, say you, was involved with the Kennedy assassination and not be changed for months, or that elephants are doing something silly, or whatever.

Yeah, but that's generally uncommon in the best articles. I mean, you might be able to get away with it on something obscure, but given that the number of people working on wikipedia and the quality of its articles is continuously improving I would say that's changing pretty rapidly.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki


This is interesting, especially given wikipedia has, on average, the same number of inaccuracies as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

University students shouldn't have been trying to cite it as a source anyways (nor should they be citing an Encyclopedia). Both are convenient to look up something quickly, but neither should be used as a reference in academic work. As the article points out, much like encyclopedias, wikipedia entries often have very good citations. A person can use wikipedia as a reference to find and read the cited information.

University students shouldn't have been trying to cite it as a source anyways (nor should they be citing an Encyclopedia). Both are convenient to look up something quickly, but neither should be used as a reference in academic work. As the article points out, much like encyclopedias, wikipedia entries often have very good citations. A person can use wikipedia as a reference to find and read the cited information.

Actually, that's usually what I'll do when starting research. I'll look up the Wikipedia article and follow the links.

We are not allowed to use it here, due to its unreliability, because people can edit it. Or so the school says.

Your post is unreliable. You edited it.

Yeah, but that's generally uncommon in the best articles. I mean, you might be able to get away with it on something obscure, but given that the number of people working on wikipedia and the quality of its articles is continuously improving I would say that's changing pretty rapidly.

This only breeds the most persistent answer, not always the correct answer.

Nazz, I don't understand that logic. Why is Wikipedia, which can be edited to correct inaccuracies, less credible than several of those source pages...which can remain unedited and inaccurate? Unless the article says NPOV conflict, or any other warnings, it should be perfectly fine to use...

Because the key to using sources in writing is to find primary sources, not secondary sources or paraphrases, and that's what Wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong--I love it and use it myself, but not as a primary source and not in any academic writing. But I wouldn't use Britannica either.

Besides, the assignments I give my students rarely require research. In composition, they're reacting to and against essays, so there's no research there, and in literature classes, they're reacting to pieces of literature, and I want their reactions, not the reactions of some critic. It helps me keep the plagiarism levels down too.

My professors and TAs certainly never would have accepted Wikipedia as a source. That goes for any other encyclopedia, too.

I certainly wouldn't accept it as a source for any paper my students turned in. If you can find it in Wikipedia, you can follow the source links at the bottom of the page is how I look at it.

Too right mate.

I do not look at wiki as a source. Rather as a tool that can help me reach an answer.

Obviously you need to use your common sense and if in doubt ask around...see what data is valid and then verify it. Links to reputable news services are a good source.

Some of the stuff on wiki is pretty good and well researched. The problem is that they just get overwhelmed with spammers and trolls which added to their internal political strife is turning a good idea into a sort of google with added 'intellectual omph' for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders ;)

Yehaaa!

This only breeds the most persistent answer, not always the correct answer.

Yes, but almost all of the time the most persistent answer tends to be the correct one.

Actually, Wikipedia has fewer inaccuracies than Britannica does.true..
and I love Wikipedia

The main problem is: Wikipedia Universality has made it the target for scum..

they are using it as a Propaganda tool.
Colbert opened my eyes.

When was Wikipedia ever allowed as a citable source?

Two reasons why wiki isn't accepted as a citable source by university - though you are encouraged to read wiki's articles and look up the external sources provided.

1) Internet sources as a whole are looked upon poorly as they can be edited or withdrawn completely. However, people or corporations that have a physical as well as web presence are generally acceptable.

2) Who do you cite as the author? Even if you look up the history of an article all you get is a screenname which you probably not be able to connect to any article outside of wiki. You can cite companies and organisations, just so long as they are indentiable.

They don't mind if you cite a factually incorrect article, infact, you get marks for pointing out bad facts or faulty analysis in your references.

Two reasons why wiki isn't accepted as a citable source by university - though you are encouraged to read wiki's articles and look up the external sources provided.

1) Internet sources as a whole are looked upon poorly as they can be edited or withdrawn completely. However, people or corporations that have a physical as well as web presence are generally acceptable.

2) Who do you cite as the author? Even if you look up the history of an article all you get is a screenname which you probably not be able to connect to any article outside of wiki. You can cite companies and organisations, just so long as they are indentiable.

They don't mind if you cite a factually incorrect article, infact, you get marks for pointing out bad facts or faulty analysis in your references.

That pretty much sums it up nicely as far as I am concerned.

Wiki has nice amount of extremists pushing their point of view.

Olmedreca;12257239']Wiki has nice amount of extremists pushing their point of view.

And the extremists come from a wide spectrum of people.

This only breeds the most persistent answer, not always the correct answer.

Wikiality! It's truthiness for the internet age!

Good to start off research, but I'd only ever cite it in something unimportant.

so now you copy the wiki article only now get the sources from the bottom and say you used the sites...

:eek: I outsmarted a professor in less than 10 seconds by God were all doomed!Or you could just read the source material it cites...

Nazz, I don't understand that logic. Why is Wikipedia, which can be edited to correct inaccuracies, less credible than several of those source pages...which can remain unedited and inaccurate? Unless the article says NPOV conflict, or any other warnings, it should be perfectly fine to use...
Because it can also be edited to ADD inaccuracies. Also, I don't tend to trust the things they use as sources.
No college student should be using an encyclopedia in the first place...our papers are neither general enough to merit one, nor are they a particularly reliable source. Learn to use a peer-reviewed journal, ffs. Welcome to big-boy sources.

It's almost impossible to find a source for many things and those databases schools pay loads for are absolutely shitty. Wikipedia is a verifiable and credible source. They're acting like citation Nazis now. It used to be an article was just an article ans had some references at the bottom, but now they have as many as 50 citations. And if an article has none or doesn't look important, it's quickly deleted.

It's almost impossible to find a source for many things and those databases schools pay loads for are absolutely shitty. Wikipedia is a verifiable and credible source. They're acting like citation Nazis now. It used to be an article was just an article ans had some references at the bottom, but now they have as many as 50 citations. And if an article has none or doesn't look important, it's quickly deleted.

And it has always been improper in an academic setting to cite a summary of many sources - like an encyclopedia - instead of going back to the original sources. It really isn't difficult, if you know your way around, to get the cited articles at most universities, especially considering that university access is most likely how those citing them found them as well. And students who don't wait until the last minute on a project can usually get journals to which the university does not subscribe by using interlibrary loan.

Wikipedia is not a proper source, in and of itself. It is a compilation of sources. To properly cite the work, you must go back to those who actually did it - the original articles.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki


This is interesting, especially given wikipedia has, on average, the same number of inaccuracies as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

While at it, I might also add that Encyclopedia sources are almost universally unacceptable, as they offer no analysis, and just a cursory overview of the facts. Given the level we're supposed to be at, we shouldn't need a cursory oveview of such a low quality.

Last semester I had a lecturer who took his class notes from wikipedia. Felt strange doing his essay because anything we read for it was doing more work for the course than he did. I actually read Capital and The Communist Manifesto for the essay which are both a hell of a lot of work.

The lecturer in question actually told us that TCM was too hard and just to read short notes on it!

I got told in about 5 different classes last year to never cite wikipedia, but they all said it was due to it being able to be edited so easily, not because we weren't supposed to use encyclopedias in general.

I've been told since my earliest days at Ohio State that wikipedia is uncitable.

Same at Purdue, which we all know is far better than tOSU.

Afterall, I read it on wiki. (and US News and World Report)

Oh well, I guess they could always use the alternative (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Citing_Uncyclopedia) instead. ;)

Wikipedia usually provides sources for posted information (and if it doesn't I wouldn't trust it anyway), so not going to the original source shows some general laziness if you ask me.

It's almost impossible to find a source for many things and those databases schools pay loads for are absolutely shitty. Wikipedia is a verifiable and credible source. They're acting like citation Nazis now. It used to be an article was just an article ans had some references at the bottom, but now they have as many as 50 citations. And if an article has none or doesn't look important, it's quickly deleted.

Shitty? What school do you go to? I love my databases (databii?) and they're fairly easy to search, and if you have problems, we have research librarians available through chat most of the time, email at worst.

Actually, that's usually what I'll do when starting research. I'll look up the Wikipedia article and follow the links.

Yup. I've found some very useful external links for research that way.

It's almost impossible to find a source for many things and those databases schools pay loads for are absolutely shitty. Wikipedia is a verifiable and credible source. They're acting like citation Nazis now. It used to be an article was just an article ans had some references at the bottom, but now they have as many as 50 citations. And if an article has none or doesn't look important, it's quickly deleted.
Learn to use the library. Any decent college has one that will have all you need. Wiki isn't peer-reviewed, and should not be treated as such. I can't even use articles off the web unless they are from a site such as lexisnexis.

Shitty? What school do you go to? I love my databases (databii?) and they're fairly easy to search, and if you have problems, we have research librarians available through chat most of the time, email at worst.JSTOR ftw!

We're not supose to use wiki either, of course were not supose to use Encyclopedias in general as sources. The resons I have heard for this in regardes to Wiki are inaccuracies, lack of proper citations, and plagerism issues.

They don’t let me use it at my high school…
They even block the site on the school computers.

i'm shocked that it has ever been an acceptable source at an academic institution. it may be more accurate that the encyclopaedia brittanica (i don't know how true that is, maybe i'll wiki it) but it's authorship is still unaccountable and is not vetted in any way so it is ridiculous to treat the site as anything more than a place to start a search for more reliable information.

That report was done about 5 years ago i believe.

It was also only pertaining to the sections dealing with the natural sciences.