What do you think of Wikipedia?

brianthebard

I looked up an article on Liberty Hall today with Wikipedia, which said amongst other things that it was;
-James Connolly's personal fortress (debateable!)
- constantly guarded by the ICA from 1913 to 1916 (not true, or possible)
- that it was Dublin Castle's biggest enemy and because of the ICA was completely safe to all rebels (lol)
- and again because of the ICA the Irish Worker newspaper was never shut down like others were during the First World War. (completely wrong!)

I was amazed that someone could write this nonsense in an article! I changed a few things in it, see if you can spot the difference; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Hall#History

This is just one example of the why Wiki is not a source people should use for history essays. There are millions of other articles with similar or worse claims. What do people think of wikipedia, its purpose, its effects on learning and research in the modern day? Do you have any alternatives that you use instead?
Thanks.

Morlar

I find it too open to abuse. Anything related to israel or the israeli experience can be suspect, in fact there was a recent scandal where (if I recall correctly) a 200 ish large group of pro israel wiki editors banded together to manipulate an election to put in place a virulently pro israel senior wiki editor. They also engaged in a policy of organised en masse editing of anything israel related in order to spin it in the direction of pro-israel advocacy.

In terms of general history articles it can be a good starting point, especially for things like dates.

It is sometimes hard to know who has ripped off who though as I have seen articles in wiki that are almost direct lifts of articles on different sites so the wide scale 'copy and paste' works in both directions.

Doyler92

I do use it quite a bit I must say but am always wary of information took from it. It can be too easily altered. When doing the history exam for the leaving cert you need 3 sources. They can be anything really but wikipedia is not accepted is a legitimate source.

Hellm0

Wikipedia is an immensely powerful and useful source of information, though of course it cannot be held to be the only source of information. As Diderot put it;

"An encyclopedia ought to make good the failure to execute such a project hitherto, and should encompass not only the fields already covered by the academies, but each and every branch of human knowledge."

This means that all knowledge is open to cataloging, which of course raises the issue of who has the power to decide A) The system of categorization and The hierarchy of information.

The most efficient method for this is to accept changes from all sources, in aggregate the data will eventually go through a process of filtering. This of course will occur with greater speed on pages which are heavily viewed, and very much depends on subject matter (a wiki page on the subject of physics may be less prone to error than a historical account).

As in all historical research however, only primary sources are considered solid. Tertiary and secondary sources are of course useful, however you should only rely upon verifiable sources.

Peace
H.

Morlar

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you have any alternatives that you use instead?
Thanks.

In terms of WW2 I generally use places like feldgaru or axis history, also collecting militaria sometimes puts you in touch with a lot of lower level original documents, materials and photographs too.

brianthebard

Do people here think wiki has had a bad effect on history studies in general? One of the girls in my final year tutorial group used wiki as a source and put it in her bibliography! she was docked marks, not sure if she failed that essay.

Hellm0

brianthebard wrote: »

Do people here think wiki has had a bad effect on history studies in general? One of the girls in my final year tutorial group used wiki as a source and put it in her bibliography! she was docked marks, not sure if she failed that essay.

The issue for historical accounts is unlike that of the sciences. Unfortunately, the farther we move away from a paper based (or static evidence based) system and more towards a fluid system (such as Wikipedia), the more we will find revisionism as an occurrence. The concept of collaborative effort has, in some ways, had a detrimental effect upon charged subjects such as history. Past events do not change, however societies narrative of them can and will.

That said, I am happier with a system which is open to change by everyone as this will eventually lead to the canceling out of any efforts made by specific groups. Just because books do not change does not mean they were not written full of lies in the first place. At least with a system open to maximal revision (and with a change tracking system), we are increasing the chances of the truth being revealed.

That said, there is no replacement for research. Wikipedia is but one source of information, if I am determined to find out the truth I will start there and cross reference information as required with primary sources and evidence. It does however work well enough as a gateway.

So in short yes, I do think it has a beneficial effect upon history. Whereas in the past history was written by the winners, at least now the losers can complain openly.

brianthebard

What happens on wiki isn't revisionism though, its wilful ignorance at best and at worst malicious misinformation, as morlar previously pointed out. Yes books can be full of lies, but at least when they stay the same an author has to admit a mistake if they want to edit their work. plus it allows everyone to read the same text whether it be next year or fifty years. Its funny you should mention the static nature of books though, since I was at a talk by one of the top guys in Cambridge UP last year, where he talked about digitisation. It opens up the possibility of stopping the press and editing a text, or editing the 'manuscript' at a later date, similar to what happens on wiki. Its a new technology and not widely used yet, but it could have a big impact on the nature of texts.

Amtmann

Wikipedia is never a good source because it isn't authoritative. It isn't peer-reviewed by professional historians. This is one of its major flaws, and this is why it should never, ever be cited by a student in any essay.

If I want a good but general overview of a broad historical topic, I might consult what I call a tertiary source. This book is a great example of what I'm talking about. It's good because it was a) written by a professional historian; b) contains thousands of footnotes pointing to excellent secondary sources; and c) has been peer-reviewed.

Whenever I look at a wikipedia history article the first thing I do is check the bibliography. See the bibliography here for instance. There you have a list of works written by Madison Grant, so this effectively ammounts to a useful list of primary sources that can in theory be consulted by anyone wishing to research Grant's work. In terms of secondary sources, if I am unfamiliar with the books/articles cited, I will usually check for scholarly reviews of said books via online journal repositories such as JSTOR. Occasionally I look the book up on Amazon as well; but I always look for scholarly reviews of those books in academic journals.

That's my tuppence worth anyway.

amacachi

TBH anyone who uses Wikipedia for something important is an idiot. I'm surprised there's not been reports of people handing in essays in college with "JHON IS GHEY~~~~~LOL!" included because I know plenty of people who believe everything they read on it.

pablomakaveli

I'd only read Wikipedia if i wanted to get a general overview on a topic. Wikipedia has gained a fairly bad reputation and is rarely accepted as a legitimate source.

I think the bias of some of the editors has ruined the sites reputation.

EDIT: I just remembered a few years ago i edited some smaller articles and put in false information which while false if you did'nt know anything about the topics they could be assumed to be true. I used no references either. I checked back a year or two later and the false information was still there.

brianthebard

Furet wrote: »

Wikipedia is never a good source because it isn't authoritative. It isn't peer-reviewed by professional historians. This is one of its major flaws, and this is why it should never, ever be cited by a student in any essay.

If I want a good but general overview of a broad historical topic, I might consult what I call a tertiary source. This book is a great example of what I'm talking about. It's good because it was a) written by a professional historian; b) contains thousands of footnotes pointing to excellent secondary sources; and c) has been peer-reviewed.

Whenever I look at a wikipedia history article the first thing I do is check the bibliography. See the bibliography here for instance. There you have a list of works written by Madison Grant, so this effectively ammounts to a useful list of primary sources that can in theory be consulted by anyone wishing to research Grant's work. In terms of secondary sources, if I am unfamiliar with the books/articles cited, I will usually check for scholarly reviews of said books via online journal repositories such as JSTOR. Occasionally I look the book up on Amazon as well; but I always look for scholarly reviews of those books in academic journals.

That's my tuppence worth anyway.

That's a good idea about looking at the bibliography first, and explains why the article I linked to was so bad-not a single history text referenced!

Manic Moran

On a practical level, assuming you just want accurate information as opposed to something you can put as a cite on a scholarly paper, Wiki has been shown to be about as accurate as a traditional encyclopaedia on matters non-political, mainly because there are rarely wiki-wars over the correct mathematical formula to describe the effects of airflow over a delta wing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

This has sortof started its own Wiki-War, with the Encyclopaedia strongly denying this, and Wiki retaliating with a wiki page listing the errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that Wiki got right.

http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/

The German version of Wiki actually is reviewed by an organisation paid by the German government to do so.

NTM

convert

brianthebard wrote: »

Do people here think wiki has had a bad effect on history studies in general? One of the girls in my final year tutorial group used wiki as a source and put it in her bibliography! she was docked marks, not sure if she failed that essay.

The number of final year history students who continue to reference Wikipedia in their essays is horrific. A number of students still don't seem to have grasped the fact that it can be a highly unreliable source of information, despite repeated warnings from their tutors.

I believe the main reason that it's relied upon by students stems from the fact that essays are left until the last minute and they find that books are not available in the library. As a result, they rely on on-line sources, most of which, such as jstor or history study centre, are fine, but fail to realise that wikipedia does not fall into that category. I've also had hoganstand referenced in essays on Irish history - that was scary!

amacachi wrote: »

I'm surprised there's not been reports of people handing in essays in college with "JHON IS GHEY~~~~~LOL!" included because I know plenty of people who believe everything they read on it.

You'd be surprised at what's included in essays. I corrected an essay in which a student stated that the Penal Laws prevented Catholics from owning horses more than 'five pounds in weight'. I also had an essay which referred to the 1916 Constitution of Ireland. :rolleyes: These are only 2 of the many, many examples I've come across of students who've stupidly relied on Wikipedia as an accurate source for history.

As has been mentioned above, Wikipedia is fine to read as a first reference, to get a brief introduction to the topic, but should not be relied upon as a definitive source. People should use reputable books and articles to inform themselves, rather than forming opinions and arguments based upon a source which can be edited by anybody who has access to the internet.

brianthebard

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a practical level, assuming you just want accurate information as opposed to something you can put as a cite on a scholarly paper, Wiki has been shown to be about as accurate as a traditional encyclopaedia on matters non-political, mainly because there are rarely wiki-wars over the correct mathematical formula to describe the effects of airflow over a delta wing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm



This has sortof started its own Wiki-War, with the Encyclopaedia strongly denying this, and Wiki retaliating with a wiki page listing the errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that Wiki got right.

http://www.switched.com/2007/07/24/wikipedia-more-accurate-than-britannica/

The German version of Wiki actually is reviewed by an organisation paid by the German government to do so.

NTM

Fair point on the non-political articles. Wiki is also great if you want to know anything about the simpsons.

I wonder if how concerned the German organisation is about accuracy, and how much is about ensuring their political message is continued on wiki?

CDfm

Wikipedia is more like a redtop/tabloid and I always double check the references.

funktastic

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that can be edited by people. It is great for an initial starting point on an aspect in history but obviously you have to consult other sources.

I don’t see how it can have an adverse effect on history in general. People read about a particular aspect and can click on other relevant parts of the story that can give a greater overall understanding of the story.

Yes the editing on Wiki can be ignorance at best, but isn’t it up to people in Leaving Cert /uni to be able to distinguish from both? They should be at a certain point of historical knowledge RE:bias/propaganda at that stage. They know at that level that Wiki can be edited by anyone and quoting it/using is purely in essays is lazy.

‘Wikipedia is never a good source because it isn't authoritative. It isn't peer-reviewed by professional historians.’ Secondary history books aren’t reviewed by professional historians. I am a secondary history teacher for 4 years with an MA in Twentieth Century Irish History and can point out mistakes at a mile but don’t get my knickers in a knot if 3rd year history students make a basic error due to a history book.

Yes it shouldn’t be referenced by final year students, but why isn’t this hammered into them at the start? To be doing this in final year is shocking, more so on the tutors/lecturers part in the first place for not emphasising the nature of wiki

Valmont

brianthebard wrote: »

This is just one example of the why Wiki is not a source people should use for history essays.

I agree with this point and indeed no student should use it as a source for any college work. Wikipedia, for all the inaccuracies is a tremendous source of general knowledge on just about everything and it is always my first stop when I hear about something of general interest.

For example, I wanted to find out about wolverines the other day so I checked wikipedia, nothing wrong with that and I'm sure the basics are all correct (they are, by the way). Also, I don't really know anything about Auguste Pinochet, so I checked wikipedia for the general outline on him earlier.

Wikipedia is very valuable in that it is useful for opening up a topic for someone in a general manner. The naysayers tend to overlook the fact that for every grossly inaccurate article, there are many perfectly accurate ones that are enthusiastically cared for by people who know a lot about the subject.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic about the whole thing as I am always using it but you have to admire any attempt to accumulate all knowledge into a conveniently accessible website!

(edit: sorry, nothing to do with history really)

CDfm

Valmont wrote: »

For example, I wanted to find out about wolverines the other day so I checked wikipedia, nothing wrong with that and I'm sure the basics are all correct (they are, by the way). Also, I don't really know anything about Auguste Pinochet, so I checked wikipedia for the general outline on him earlier.



(edit: sorry, nothing to do with history really)

I certainly find that in areas I know something about its unreliable even with the basic facts. I don't think peer review is the issue but its more about general editorial standards.

To give an example, if you were to post in Atheist and Agnostics and cite Occams Razor you would get a very different version of it to what William of Occam intended it to meanor what people who read philosophy intend it to mean when they use it. I imagine those who use the argument in A+A source their info on Wikipedia.

So if language is meant to convey meaning etc wikipedia is very superficial and in lots of cases as biased as the Christian Brothers were teaching Irish History. So you are liable to get the Alice in Wonderland version.

Enjoyable yes -reliable no -and its getting worse.

Valmont

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine those who use the argument in A+A source their info on Wikipedia.

Imagine indeed.

CDfm wrote: »

To give an example, if you were to post in Atheist and Agnostics and cite Occams Razor you would get a very different version of it to what William of Occam intended it to meanor what people who read philosophy intend it to mean when they use it.

The article on Occam's Razor has reliable sources, what exactly would be your issue with it? Although that is probably well off topic.

CDfm wrote: »

Enjoyable yes -reliable no -and its getting worse.

How is it getting worse?

CDfm

Valmont wrote: »

The article on Occam's Razor has reliable sources, what exactly would be your issue with it? Although that is probably well off topic.

I am just using it as an example- not really having a pop. My point is that people can get a very superficial reading of something and repeat it as fact. Now - I can be pedantic so it irks me.

How is it getting worse?

Generally, probably because it is size driven rather than accuracy driven.

In Wiki world it is the internet.

brianthebard

funktastic wrote: »

Yes the editing on Wiki can be ignorance at best, but isn’t it up to people in Leaving Cert /uni to be able to distinguish from both? They should be at a certain point of historical knowledge RE:bias/propaganda at that stage. They know at that level that Wiki can be edited by anyone and quoting it/using is purely in essays is lazy.

‘Wikipedia is never a good source because it isn't authoritative. It isn't peer-reviewed by professional historians.’ Secondary history books aren’t reviewed by professional historians. I am a secondary history teacher for 4 years with an MA in Twentieth Century Irish History and can point out mistakes at a mile but don’t get my knickers in a knot if 3rd year history students make a basic error due to a history book.

Yes it shouldn’t be referenced by final year students, but why isn’t this hammered into them at the start? To be doing this in final year is shocking, more so on the tutors/lecturers part in the first place for not emphasising the nature of wiki

Regards leaving certs I wouldn't really expect them to know that wiki isn't a proper source, there was no emphasis on research when i did the leaving, and only the slightest mention of primary and secondary sources and bias.
In uni we were told not to use it at the start of the course, but I have little sympathy for those who did it anyways. However again there was very little emphasis put on how to find your sources and which ones were 'right'. The reading list is generally seen as the place from which sources are gathered.

I'm not trying to excuse lazy students but I think a better effort could be made on the part of the university/ies to teach them how to research. I agree that books often have lots of mistakes in them, but they are still treated to a sort of vetting process by readers over the years, and as previously mentioned are static, so at least the author cannot cover up their errors without explanation.

One other thing is that people often say they just use wiki to check dates or names, but these can also be wrong. In fact it is perhaps these little details that are not going to be rechecked elsewhere that make it the most aggravating.
For instance looking at the link I posted in the op, I can easily imagine someone lifting the statement that 'liberty hall was Connolly's personal fortress' verbatim and putting it in their essay. These errors, multiplied hundreds of thousands of times over the whole of wiki makes it an unreliable source.

CDfm wrote: »

So if language is meant to convey meaning etc wikipedia is very superficial and in lots of cases as biased as the Christian Brothers were teaching Irish History. So you are liable to get the Alice in Wonderland version.

Enjoyable yes -reliable no -and its getting worse.

Yes this is an excellent point that I hadn't thought of. Even if an article is 'accurate' in strictly factual terms, it is almost always lacking an author's comprehensive knowledge which adds to a text, and can differ significantly from proper works on the same topic. The piece is unlikely to take into account issues of interpretation or counter arguments. Most of the time they read like someone has complied a list of statements and put them together without thinking too much.