If you're like me, you're skeptical about anything you read on the internet unless you know the source, even then you'll still believe it when you see it. that having been said, what kinds of information do you trust Wikipedia to provide you with? I basically use it for accessing general run-of-the-mill, Final Jeopardy trivial stuff, nothing too important. you?
I would not trust it for a major endeavour but as a general starting point it's fine, I would not trust a paper encyclopedia either since they're not supposed to be exhaustive sources of information. I know enough about how Wikipedia works, given that I'm a frequent contributor, that I know to check the history of anything that looks suspect.
For basic info, sure, but I would never trust it for, say, an academic resource. I mainly use it for checking little things. For instance, just the other day, I wanted to know if Pluto wasn't a planet, then what was it? So I read the article in Wiki to satisfy my own curiosity. But if I were going to present the information to someone academically or professionally, then I would certainly not use Wiki, except perhaps to see what works they cited, and then look up THOSE works for possible references.
My Humanities instructor was laughing the other day, telling us how some students have tried to use Wiki as a credible source. As stated above, perhaps for some basic info or what might spark a synapse or two in my own thoughts, but other than that it is not trustworthy. Damn, looks like old-school (encyclopedias) win out in this battle.
I agree with everything said above. One thing that does annoy me, however, is people automatically dismissing something that's on Wiki just because it's Wiki. At least have the courtesy to read it, check the sources, etc. Some people act like every article has had the nouns changed to "penguin" or something, it's just not the case. Most articles are quite accurate, some do have leanings and apparent biases but they tend to be the less important ones. And they are usually referenced to death, you can always look those up too.
I use wiki to check some background facts or to look up a bunch of topics to see if they fit together. Usually history stuff where I want to look up a specific date for my own edification.
I use it for basic information about whatever I'm looking up. Sometimes the articles are really in depth, so I'll try to verify the info with another source if I can.
I'd take a big red pen to any student's work that used wikipedia - it's not a reliable source for citation (which is also wikipedia's own position), fantastic resource however for getting an overview and helping you to form your information seeking strategy.
I usually checked the referenced sources if it's important. Otherwise, yes, I tend to take quite a lot of general information there at face value. So far, most of what I've checked against other sources appears to have been correct (not counting articles already flagged).
I do automatically dismiss anyone who cites Wiki as evidence in an argument or discussion, and the burden isn't on me to go out and check the sourcing - it's on the person who cited it in the first place. They can go to the original source if they want to provide credible evidence. Wiki can be a legitimate starting point for some research, but if you never get beyond it, you haven't got anything. Citing Wiki is just pure laziness, because the vast majority of Wiki entries are sources to online articles anyway. A little research beyond just searching Wiki can provide some actual credible information. And no, I don't trust Wiki, because anyone can go in and write and edit the content - and there have been countless cases of Wiki used to spread disinformation, propaganda and just plain wrong information.
i use it for info on TV shows, comics and basic data. i mean, the other day i was reading up on World War I because i basically didn't know why it all kicked off beyond some Serb shooting some dude with a band named after him. it gave me enough info for me to understand which is what i wanted. i also use if for basic data on stars for my book, but i look at other sites beyond wiki such as atlasoftheuniverse.com and solstation.
I'll admit that I don't generally trust Wikipedia; however, I was shocked to read that some universities are starting to accept it as a scholarly resource. I was reading in a text book for a class recently and it cites Wikipedia as a source.
Eh? can you link to somewhere? I've never encountered such a thing. It might used as a resource discussing the use of wikipedia but otherwise... If you tried to use in a proper peer reviewed paper, you might as well scrawl "I stink of piss" across the top.
Actually Wikipedia is a pretty good general reference for less controversial and more esoteric subjects, particularly in the sciences. Sometimes it's a great way to get scientific and technical information that's hard to find elsewhere. And it's usually pretty good as a reference on pop culture. Of course it shouldn't be relied on as an uncorroborated source, but the same goes for pretty much any source. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has been known to contain errors. It's just a matter of general principle that every source's claims should be corroborated by other sources rather than taken on faith. And the advantage of Wikipedia over a print encyclopedia is that its errors or biased statements are much easier to correct, and a record is kept of all changes so the process is completely transparent and the reader can judge for oneself.
After I edit the Wiki entry to match something I've said, I can then point to it to show that I'm right!
Good enough for "satisfy my curiosity" stuff. Often a nice jumping off point for more info and resources. My annoyance with wikipedia is a lack of uniformity in how articles are formatted or what detail they provide in particular those related to musical acts.
Sure, I use it frequently, but for geek stuff more than anything. For example, to find a list of which Doctor Who episodes are still missing. But then, I'm not in school, and I'm not trying to publish any papers, it's all for fun stuff. It's fine for me.
I've written a few Wikipedia articles. Even this limited experience was enough to turn me off the whole process. Like a lot of people, I use Wikipedia to satisfy my curiosity. I wouldn't cite it as a source in any kind of scholarly debate, and I wouldn't allow my students to cite it. In fact, I tell my first-year students that encyclopedias and websites of any kind are not acceptable sources for their research papers, as a way of forcing them to drag their lazy asses down to the library. True story: one of my fellow professors had a student who plagiarized Wikipedia for his research paper--and then tried to get rid of the evidence of his plagiarism by editing the article. My colleague found him out, of course, and gave him the zero he deserved. The student then went onto facebook and ranted about what an asshole my colleague was. My colleague's wife then brought this rant (and its author) to his attention Do students think their professors have never heard of the internet, or something? We have, you know. Most of us, anyway.
Of course it's not a primary source I'd use when writing an academic paper, but if Wiki says X comic book character was introduced in Issue X, where the hell else would I get that information beside the original book which I probably don't have a copy of lying around? Some other website that's just as accurate or inaccurate? Maybe a magazine article that's just as accurate or inaccurate? how about a marvel staffer on an off day? I would also assume you don't trust ANY source but peer reviewed academic papers and don't believe ANY online source is credible? I assume you also believe formal encyclopedia are not credible sources? Data would suggest Brittanica is just as unreliable as Wiki. And for that matter, since when were university textbooks 100% accurate? Used in conjunction with the sources provided, Wiki is a very powerful research tool, it's just not a primary source.