Wikipedia

[Bander87]

I hear it all the time in school by teachers, that wikipedia isn't a valid source because anyone can edit the content of the information. I went to see how easy it really was to edit the information, and it only took me 2 clicks... one to edit the page and one to save the page.

But there is sooo much good information on wikipedia and teachers totally disregard it.

Here's some arguments:
-Information can be more accurate since everyone is correcting eachother. Yes, there are more people making mistakes, but I believe most people who don't know what they are talking about won't edit the page and errors will be corrected by other editors.
-If someone does screw around with editing the page, one can always check the editing history.
-It's more up to date then older encyclopedias

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

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

I personally believe that wikipedia is more valid source than newspapers in a lot of instances, yet newspapers seem to be regarded more valid. Webpages that are "user created" such as geocities, are sometimes regarded as more valid. Teachers say "be careful" when viewing these sites, because they arn't always right. Why should they not put that same philosophy to wikipedia?

And for an FYI, I'm in highschool. How do college professors handle wikipedia?

[HighDemonslayer]

Wikipedia is great, go look at what it says about footbag.



-n

[Iron Clad Ben]

They'll come around. I remember when CD-ROMs were becoming all the rage back in the day. Teachers said you couldn't use information from CD ROM encyclopedias because they could be inaccurate. It's just the education system resisting new types of media. Wikipedia is still very new and the concept of using it to gather information is still new to most folks, even though it's been around for several years now. In a few years, kids will probably be allowed to use Wikipedia as a valid source for reports.

It's actually extremely hard to spread vanadalize and spread disinformation through wikipedia. There are enough experts watching their favorite topics that things can be unedited and even anonymous cowards can have their IP's banned if they pull enough stunts. It's really cool how it's evolved into this organism that grows and heals itself.

With that said, it will still be a while before academia really accepts it.

[HighDemonslayer]

They changed it back... I modified the History of footbag section on wikipedia, but now its back to the way it was before,,,,,,lame.


-n

[brinard]

my english teacher love wikipedia. she uses it alot when she dosent understand "modern" language. like slang or whatever. i used wikipedia alot on my school papers... teachers cool with it...

brian

[JoFa]

It's all about tradition. Tradition tradition tradition. All of the knowledge in a normal encyclopedia had been generated by human beings. Same for wikipedia. Why is the latter not accepted? Because traditionally, the younger mind's ideas *cannot* be equal to those of the "superior" elders. When kids have access to wikipedia, traditional teachers say "OH, that could be WRONG!!!" Well guess what? Encyclopedias can be incorrect as well! TAKE THAT EVIL TEACHERS!!!!!



*calming down*

[carl winslow]

Its not wikipedia that your teachers dont want you using as sources for your papers --its ANY encylopedia- or website. Encyclopeida articles should not be used as sources for academic papers.
Books written about your topic and primary sources are what teachers want you to be citing.

[DoctorJay]

Wikipedia is great - I use it a lot much more often than google or other books.


Maybe there is a percentage of mistakes in it but who cares? Most of the time you need to just get some knowledge about the topic and three or four urls from it.


Moreover how can a teacher criticise/ judge a whole encyclopedia?

I like those community/ open source stuff so I am a big promoter of wikipedia.

[Jeremy]

I think with school work and presenting any kind of information that needs to have a high degree of accuracy it's best to get more than one source and if you do that and tell the teachers that then you'll be fine. I think the accuracy of wikipedia really depends on the subject being discussed. I think in all types of information media there are questionable facts. Newspapers make mistakes all the time and there are also plenty of issues where different people will have different ideas of truth. I have a very strong scientific background and as such I think it's best not to believe anything you read but to generally treat it as correct unless you have a reason not to trust it.

[Commodore]

Wikipedia rules and stupid teachers suck.

[t1337dude]

Also, Wiki-Editors who edit for worse, are banned.

[Bagira]

My scholastic opinion on wikipedia is that it's good for background information, but should never be cited. EVER.

My general opinion on wikipedia is that it is really good for becoming very knowledgeable in random stuff over a long period of time... aka CULTURED. Just read random wiki articles and in a month or two, with decent memory, you'll be spewing as much random junk as any other cultured person.

For papers? Just don't cite it. Most professors will consider it bad practice/taste at best and plagiarism at worst.

[Stobes]

yeah dude, Wikipedia kicks ass, they have a write-up for anything you can imagine...EVEN FOOTBAG !

[Bander87]

Okay, I definately see now that wikipedia shouldn't be used as an actuall source, but I did notice that in some "important" articles they do have citations, which can be helpfull.

[Splint]

Wikipedia is a great starting point. However, I won't accept it as a valid resource when I become a teacher next year. Basically, when you write a paper as a budding student or even as a professional, you are generally considered to have zero credibility because no one knows you or any expertise that you may or may not have. By siting sources of other researchers in professional areas you are essentially borrowing their credibility. Those resources generally come from areas of academia and media that prove the test of time and respect for professionalism. If Wikipedia is the kind of place where anyone can go on and edit information then you have no idea if that information is true or valid.

Here's some arguments:
-Information can be more accurate since everyone is correcting eachother. Yes, there are more people making mistakes, but I believe most people who don't know what they are talking about won't edit the page and errors will be corrected by other editors.
-If someone does screw around with editing the page, one can always check the editing history.
-It's more up to date then older encyclopedias

-Information can just as equally be inaccurate. Just because someone thinks they know what they are talking about, doesn't make it so. I might edit your entry because I think I know better, but I could be totally wrong.
-checking the editing history doesn't do anything.
-There are plenty of other online encyclopedias that are up to date.

Wikipedia is a great place to head to in order to gather information, but then you have to do further research to find primary or at least secondary sources to site.

[slapdash21]

By siting sources...

citing brad, citing

[wolfpac444]

Yeah, Wikipedia is a great place to start research if you're doing a paper or are just interested in a topic. Almost all of the information contained on a wiki page should be able to be found in the sources they cite.

[shredzilla]

By siting sources...

citing brad, citing

haha

[carl winslow]

arent encyclopedia articles in general not good sources?
most of my profs always demand primary sources or books on the subject.