Wikipedia

BillyBoy13 · 14-01-2014 9:21am #1

Every time I mention something to someone "oh I read that on wikipedia" or having an argument and use Wikipedia to back up my point of view people cringe and facepalm etc as if Id just linked to the daily mail. From what I hear even certain colleges refuse to let students touch it with a barge pole. Im just wondering why all the hate? Ive always found it very accurate and think its an invaluable resource.

Tombi! · 14-01-2014 9:22am

The problem is that people use it as a source which is wrong from an academic standpoint since anyone (mostly) can edit most things.
Now, you can use it as a starting point and use the source it cites.

As for most people, I have no clue. I assume they think because Wikipedia is edited so easily, that it's filled with false information.

Banjoxed · 14-01-2014 9:30am

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Every time I mention something to someone "oh I read that on wikipedia" or having an argument and use Wikipedia to back up my point of view people cringe and facepalm etc as if Id just linked to the daily mail. From what I hear even certain colleges refuse to let students touch it with a barge pole. Im just wondering why all the hate? Ive always found it very accurate and think its an invaluable resource.

There are other resources available to students such as the Academic edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica and loads of online databases. One example of why Wikipedia should not be trusted: the Wikipedia entry on the old Nationalist Party in the North was the subject of an edit war some years ago, because one editor insisted in the teeth of all evidence that the name of the party was The National Party of Northern Ireland. Wikipedia is open to crank and libellous editing unless pages are protected.

It's good for a bit of amusement though.

keeponhurling · 14-01-2014 9:33am

We've all updated stuff on wikipedia from time to time, for trolling purposes

littlelulu · 14-01-2014 9:37am

keeponhurling wrote: »

We've all updated stuff on wikipedia from time to time, for trolling purposes

Have we?

Teyla Emmagan · 14-01-2014 9:47am

littlelulu wrote: »

Have we?

Bertie Ahern's profile picture was replaced by my friend Diarmaid's at one stage.

Oh, how we laughed.

Shenshen · 14-01-2014 10:03am

I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for any controversial topic (sports, politics, religion. The usual suspects)
But even for those topics, a wiki article can be a very good starting point, if you simply follow the links to external sources.

For non-controversial things, I find wiki a good place for a quick definiton or summary. I was recently trying to find out what exactly the difference between a jungle and a rainforest is, and wiki's explanation was straight-forward and reasonable.

DesperateDan · 14-01-2014 10:11am

I think it's hipsters, people pretending they don't touch Wikipedia because they like to make out like they know so much better, and Wikipedia is so open to trolls.

In actual fact the community is very swift at fixing errors and stopping trolls.

For my Master's in Trinity our Maths lecturer was a vehement supporter of Wikipedia - we had to write an article as part or the course and assess an article during an exam.

It's an invaluable resource and gets my money every year, I can only ever honestly remember finding one error on it and I use it every day. If your not sure you check somewhere else but I've never had to.

ZiabR · 14-01-2014 10:19am

keeponhurling wrote: »

We've all updated stuff on wikipedia from time to time, for trolling purposes

And your changes are soon checked before being deleted if they are found to be false.

SuperGrover · 14-01-2014 10:27am

Wikipedia is pretty much what the internet does best.

anncoates · 14-01-2014 10:31am

I wouldn't use it as an academic source and contentious or political topics need to be approached with an open mind but I think the amount of experts with good intentions probably at least neutralizes troll and crank input.

I know that whenever I read and contribute to topics I would know a lot about, the stuff seems accurate enough.

There's no real motive for people to disseminate misinformation on the vast majority of topics to be honest.

gctest50 · 14-01-2014 10:32am

logik wrote: »

And your changes are soon checked before being deleted if they are found to be false.

Pity the wikipaedos aren't that sharp with hoax articles :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia

eg :

Reference to "glucojasinogen" in diabetic neuropathy

<appeared for > 4 years, 4½ months

original edit appears word for word in S.V. Tembhurne and D.M. Sakarkar (June 2010). "Influence of Murraya koenigii on experimental model of diabetes and progression of neuropathic pain". Res Pharm Sci. 5 (1): 41–47. and Talha Jawaid, Ashok K Shakya, Mehnaz Kamal, and Sarfaraz Hussain (June 2008). "Amitriptyline and Sertraline in Diabetic Neuropathy: A Comparative View". International Journal of Health Research 1 (2): 73–78..

anncoates · 14-01-2014 10:33am

keeponhurling wrote: »

We've all updated stuff on wikipedia from time to time, for trolling purposes

Only if you're a 14 year old idiot.

biko · 14-01-2014 10:34am

Wikipedia is often fine for research purposes as it can lead you to a better/accurate source.
It also has additional info that can be useful.

That said - Wiki alone is not a source, it's just a guide.

keeponhurling · 14-01-2014 10:35am

logik wrote: »

And your changes are soon checked before being deleted if they are found to be false.

Nope, one particular item is still there, 8 years later

danniemcq · 14-01-2014 10:38am

Wikipedia is great for 99% of the time. I use it quite a bit and it has some very well researched topics.

However you do run into issues when discussing some topics where people commenting/editing the article aren't the most knowledgable on the subject.

For example I really enjoy discussing wars, be they battles, results or whatever. If someone says oh I read on wikipedia that X won Y battle because of A,B and C but someone who say has read (for this example Stephen E. Ambrose books on WW2) and that X won Y battle because of D, E and F I would put the second persons opinion above the first.

There are a few reasons for this.

Wikipedia articles have a source, that source is then rewritten, then edited, then updated, then rolled back, then rewritten, then someone reads it and uses it in a discussion. Thats a lot of noise to go through and may lose some information or have some remain that is inaccurate.

Coming from a book dedicated to the matter however you have much more authenticity. You know that this has been researched and vouched for amd it lacks the noise/chinese whispers of sorts of a chain of information.

If something interests you on wikipedia have a look at the references they use to get source of the comment.

emmabrighton · 14-01-2014 10:40am

Grand if you use it as a launch pad for sources, I say! Plenty of links to academic papers... click on one of those and away you go...

Green Giant · 14-01-2014 11:59am

emmabrighton wrote: »

Grand if you use it as a launch pad for sources, I say! Plenty of links to academic papers... click on one of those and away you go...

100% agree with you

Wikipedia is a godsend!

wp_rathead · 14-01-2014 12:20pm

In college it was pretty much you can't use it as a reference but nothing wrong with using it as a starting block

BillyMitchel · 14-01-2014 12:22pm

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Every time I mention something to someone "oh I read that on wikipedia" or having an argument and use Wikipedia to back up my point of view people cringe and facepalm etc as if Id just linked to the daily mail. From what I hear even certain colleges refuse to let students touch it with a barge pole. Im just wondering why all the hate? Ive always found it very accurate and think its an invaluable resource.

No college should let you use it as a reference. Two universities ive attended wouldnt accept it. Anyone could write any oul crap on it.

I do use it as its always the first page to pop up 9 times out of 10 but its never for anything serious.

Last thing I looked up on it was the date an East 17 song was released!!

hypersquirrel · 14-01-2014 12:25pm

DesperateDan wrote: »

I think it's hipsters, people pretending they don't touch Wikipedia because they like to make out like they know so much better, and Wikipedia is so open to trolls.

In actual fact the community is very swift at fixing errors and stopping trolls.

For my Master's in Trinity our Maths lecturer was a vehement supporter of Wikipedia - we had to write an article as part or the course and assess an article during an exam.

It's an invaluable resource and gets my money every year, I can only ever honestly remember finding one error on it and I use it every day. If your not sure you check somewhere else but I've never had to.

This would be my approach as well. When I was teaching in college I had students regularly coming up to me and asking was Wikipedia acceptable. I always told them it was a great starting point but to check the sources. A good student will be well able to spot a fake. Truthfully I have found just as many errors in academic textbooks as I have on Wikipedia. Worse still people will take the book as fact simply because it looks more official.

wretcheddomain · 14-01-2014 12:28pm

It's pretty obvious why you can't use Wikipedia as a source:

1) It's not a "source" - it's hundreds of sources collated by hundreds of different writers and this increases the risk of academic error alone.

2) The very fact errors can be introduced is in stark contrast to academic textbooks which are guaranteed sources (mostly).

3) This quick modification and editing means the part you source today could be changed completely tomorrow.

4) Wikipedia is not intended as an academic source anyway according to its founder so at the very minimum shouldn't even be considered one.

5) Many of the detail is not even detailed enough and only provides a general overview.

Akrasia · 14-01-2014 12:29pm

Wikipedia is great and it is excellent for college or academic research

It is not a valid source for any essay or paper because No encyclopedia is!

If you're writing an essay or doing research, encyclopedias are for reference only. If you're using an encyclopedia as the source then it shows you don't understand the material. Wikipedia gives references for it's information so if you want to link to a source, just click on the links provided and read the original source

Wikipedia is just as reliable as any of the big name encyclopedias with the additional advantage that it is more up to date. Yes there are errors in Wikipedia, but there are also errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

imitation · 14-01-2014 12:34pm

BillyMitchel wrote: »

No college should let you use it as a reference. Two universities ive attended wouldnt accept it. Anyone could write any oul crap on it.

I do use it as its always the first page to pop up 9 times out of 10 but its never for anything serious.

Last thing I looked up on it was the date an East 17 song was released!!

I always found the reference thing in colleague hilarious. No reference in a report led to a right bollocking, but stick in one and they were delighted. Thing is, what makes that one reference correct ?? Just because somebody put it in some random paper or worked for an organization didnt mean they were infalliable. Historys full of respected institutions getting it all wrong.

If you are serious you have to check it from at least two sources. Wikipedia however has hundreds of sources for major topics, so immediately you get an answer that has been reviewed and debated by many people, often with multiple references to back it up. This imo makes an excellent resource for major topics. Id take it over one half mad researchers opinion/research anyday.

For less read stuff and contentious stuff, you will have issues.

Earthhorse · 14-01-2014 12:47pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Wikipedia is great and it is excellent for college or academic research

It is not a valid source for any essay or paper because No encyclopedia is!

If you're writing an essay or doing research, encyclopedias are for reference only. If you're using an encyclopedia as the source then it shows you don't understand the material. Wikipedia gives references for it's information so if you want to link to a source, just click on the links provided and read the original source

Wikipedia is just as reliable as any of the big name encyclopedias with the additional advantage that it is more up to date. Yes there are errors in Wikipedia, but there are also errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

This, exactly.

I find it hard to believe anyone would cite an encyclopedia when studying at a third level institute. You should be referring to papers and publications in your field.

For research purposes Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate and as inaccurate as any of the major encyclopedias.

KyussBishop · 14-01-2014 2:58pm

Wikipedia is good for informing you on pretty much everything - so long as you can think for yourself (i.e. can engage in a bit of critical thinking), and go to the bother of checking citations and Googling/verifying the credibility of sources for your own education; it's a great starting point.

Even when parts of Wikipedia have inaccurate/misleading information, that is useful for discovering what parts of the topic you're researching, are controversial and subject to FUD.

Necro · 29-06-2020 11:35am

Mod:

Zombie Thread Closed

Wikipedia

Comments