• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Using Wikipedia as a source

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,777
Location
South East, UK
I've just read this opinion piece: http://technology.guardian.co.UK/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html

I often turn to Wikipedia if I want to quickly look up something and I do reference it occasionally here.

However the above article got me to wondering how good is it to use as a reference source? For some reason I feel less confident using it then say I would if I used a link to Encyclopedia Britannica Online or Encarta online toi support my argument. Is this a fair reaction to Wikipedia? Has anyone done any studies or research on the accuracy of Wikipedia (and of course the same question about Britannica & Encarta)?

I think it is an important question since relying on a authority is not a fallacy unless the authority is not an authority on the matter being discussed!
 
I'd avoid it. The fact that it is so open to abuse... I've had a student hand in a research homework task (nothing big, just wedding customs) which cited it and when I looked up the link, the information had changed slightly and the student got grumpy because it USED to say what she had read.
 
Kiless said:
I'd avoid it. The fact that it is so open to abuse... I've had a student hand in a research homework task (nothing big, just wedding customs) which cited it and when I looked up the link, the information had changed slightly and the student got grumpy because it USED to say what she had read.
Click to expand...

Isn't that an old problem just made more apparent because of technological progress. Encyclopedia entries (and errors) would persist for decades in the past because the volumes couldn't be retrospectively altered and students would still use them as reference material. Wikipedia and the other on-line encyclopedias allow corrections and additions to happen in a comparatively short period (especially Wiki). I'd have thought that was a strength?
 
But with an old, print, reference, you can refer to the edition. With Wikipedia, I suppose you could refer to a date (aren't previous versions of a page in the archives?). The problem is not inaccuracy of information, it's tracability. Someone else needs to be able to track down your research if they wish to, to ensure you're not just making it up.

I'd be happy to use Wikipedia as a source of sources, or as an overview to a subject, but wouldn't cite it (except perhaps in passing but making it clear that it is not a primary source of my information) because I know that someone might try and look up what I'd written, and find it gone.
 
Darat said:
Isn't that an old problem just made more apparent because of technological progress. Encyclopedia entries (and errors) would persist for decades in the past because the volumes couldn't be retrospectively altered and students would still use them as reference material. Wikipedia and the other on-line encyclopedias allow corrections and additions to happen in a comparatively short period (especially Wiki). I'd have thought that was a strength?
Click to expand...
Up to a point, yes. ;) But remember that errors can be introduced as well as corrected.

I tend to use Wikipedia as a starting point for research, or to confirm something that I basically already know. It usually gives a good overview of a topic, and good links to other sites, but I wouldn't rely on it for 100% accurate information. I would always check its info elsewhere.
 
^^^ What Mojo said. I love Wikipedia and use it all the time when looking up bits of trivia or some basic information. When it comes to researching a topic I would either just use it as a starting point or not use it at all.
 
Seconded. It's great for gaining an overview of a subject, but no more. Wikipedia should be your first, but not last, port of call.
 
I pretty much do use it for everything but I was recently criticized by someone for using it because of its Neutral Point of View Policy. Funny. I thought that was definitely one of its strengths.

Like many said before me, I start off at Wikipedia, and usually stop there... but if something isn't clear or I need more information (most of my research is for my own knowledge anyway and not for anything important) then I'll check the links provided in order to find a more tenacious and detailed site for my, uh, cite.
 
I think the big advantage of citing wikipedia (especially on forum debates) is that you know that everyone has free access to the encyclopaedia. Other online encyclopaedias often require registration and/or subscription.

As a research tool, it’s helpful; but of course it’s always best to reference several sources anyway.

Overall, I like it and do use it.
 
Darat said:
I think it is an important question since relying on a authority is not a fallacy unless the authority is not an authority on the matter being discussed!
Click to expand...

Or the authority is the be-all-end-all of the argument, but I digress. I like Wikipedia since most of the articles are decent enough, but I would always warn people that reliance on one source is a bad thing and anything found in one source should be compared to another reliable source. I say most articles, because some can be down right atrocious in research (especially the pages related to more obscure science-fiction) and there is some controversy over Wiki's policies (the Stardestroyer.net Wiki article being a prime example). Wikipedia also has a policy against original research being posted, stifling more analytical articles.
 
Hastur said:
Or the authority is the be-all-end-all of the argument, but I digress. I like Wikipedia since most of the articles are decent enough, but I would always warn people that reliance on one source is a bad thing and anything found in one source should be compared to another reliable source. I say most articles, because some can be down right atrocious in research (especially the pages related to more obscure science-fiction) and there is some controversy over Wiki's policies (the Stardestroyer.net Wiki article being a prime example). Wikipedia also has a policy against original research being posted, stifling more analytical articles.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

To that point, I'd like to recall the first Law of Research:
To copy from a single source is plagairism. To copy from multiple sources is research.
 
I tell my students not to rely on it, only to use for general information. I don't think it's reliable as a reference source to be cited in research papers. For general info, or for a place to start looking for more in depth info, however, it is pretty good.
 
I like Wikipedia as, as people have already said, a first port of call: pretty much all the articles I've read that I actually know something about have seemed fairly spot-on, or at least presented a reasonable attempt at balance, breadth, accuracy and concision.

Though I'd never dream of citing Wikipedia (or indeed, Encyclopædia Brittanica or any others) as a source in an academic paper or assignment without special reason, I quite often chuck a Wiki link or two into the online bickering that takes place here and elsewhere, usually just as a quick and easy way to say "if you don't know anything about [x], you can briefly read up here", or "I haven't just made this up on the spot to make you look silly, you know". Always with the understanding, as with any cited reference, that any points in the article can be quibbled with given sufficient evidence or reason.
 
Darat said:
I've just read this opinion piece: http://technology.guardian.co.UK/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
Click to expand...

Well a responce of sorts is starting to emerge


Mike Barnes on the Steve Reich entry

Yeah we do have problems with makeing the articles flow

Alexandra Shulman on the Haute couture entry

Ummm yes wikipedia does rather suffer from being writen by geeks

Mark Kurlansky on the Basque people entry

We dissagree with him over the Aquitaine language and think he is POV pushing

Anthony Julius on the TS Eliot entry

Nothing really to argue with

Claire Tomalin on the Samuel Pepys entry

fair enough

Robert McHenry on the Encyclopedia entry

His clomplaints about lack of detial fail to acknolage the fact that a lot of the information that is in the britancica article is spread over the articles on individual encopedias. There is also the issue that a 26,000 word webpage would be a pain in the neck.

I often turn to Wikipedia if I want to quickly look up something and I do reference it occasionally here.

However the above article got me to wondering how good is it to use as a reference source? For some reason I feel less confident using it then say I would if I used a link to Encyclopedia Britannica Online or Encarta online toi support my argument. Is this a fair reaction to Wikipedia? Has anyone done any studies or research on the accuracy of Wikipedia (and of course the same question about Britannica & Encarta)?
Click to expand...

No formal studies with any worthwhile statistical power exist.
 
Kiless said:
I'd avoid it. The fact that it is so open to abuse... I've had a student hand in a research homework task (nothing big, just wedding customs) which cited it and when I looked up the link, the information had changed slightly and the student got grumpy because it USED to say what she had read.
Click to expand...

You can cite specific versions.
 
Matabiri said:
But with an old, print, reference, you can refer to the edition. With Wikipedia, I suppose you could refer to a date (aren't previous versions of a page in the archives?).
Click to expand...

You would need date and time. Best to cite the ulr of the version you are looking at.
 
The biggest problem I have on using Wikipedia as an authoritative source is the credentials of its creators. Reputable, commercial encyclopediae like Britannica use actual academic authorities and established historical documentation as sources; and go through a peer-review process. Wikipedia has no such process, and contributors range from academics to dork kids in their parents basements. There are a number of people who try to establish deliberately fallacious information in the encyclopedia, either for some sort of political or philosophical agenda, or simple vandalism. I know that there have been several large pages I've been unable to access at times due to being locked for this sort of manipulation. I've personally caught a few egregious errors and clearly deliberate misinformation.

While it's true that having such an open format means that errors can be corrected quickly, it's also true that they can also be introduced just as quickly, and may not be caught. Pages can change dramatically on a daily, or even more frequent, basis.
 
Is anyone really using Wikipedia like a traditional encyclopedia? I use it for the things that are important to most denizens of the web: pop-culture and geeky tech stuff.

In that regard, it excels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom