Wikipedia as a primary source?

[TerriO]

Since this subject comes up time and again, I thought it might be useful to give it its own thread for debate.

Personally, I hold that it's a good place to start your research, but by no means is it the only place you should use. As the Yale Daily News stated in their article of 7 February, 2007:

But despite this backlash against the popular site, Wikipedia officials maintain that the encyclopedia can be a useful and accurate source as long as it is used correctly.

Mathias Schindler, a member of the Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation, the umbrella organization of Wikipedia, said while Middlebury’s history department’s policy is reasonable, students can in fact augment their research by using Wikipedia.

“It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia,” Schindler said in an e-mail. “This does not mean Wikipedia is not a useful resource. Wikipedia is a great place to start your research, but students should not use it as the final word on any subject matter.”

For the record, I backtracked Schindler's name, and he is, in fact, in the Wikimedia Foundation. Yale's source checks out on this.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

I think there's a huge difference between internet discussions and actual research. As the quote indicates, the people involved with Wikipedia agree that it is not a valid source for university papers. Certainly in the sciences that is true, and it is probably the case many times in the arts (although they do cite newspapers and other similar sources out of necessity).

But in an internet forum such as this I see no problem with Wikipedia. First, peer-reviewed papers aren't freely available for everyone to view. Not everyone here is at a university with a site license, so if I post a link to an article at the Journal of Paleontology some people won't even be able to access it. So in general I will have to post a link to a non peer reviewed site that offers free viewing, and in that case why should it matter whether it is Wikipedia, BBC News, or the New York Times? All are written by non-specialists summarizing the actual scientific paper - and in some cases Wikipedia articles have contributions by actual specialists in those fields.

Second, I think the furor over the "inaccuracies" in Wikipedia is a bit overstated for the kind of non-controversial articles we're likely to talk about here. Articles about politicians or the like may be vandalized by people with grudges, but every scientific article I've read on Wikipedia has been accurate, if a bit oversimplified at times.

Third, Wikipedia articles are usually clear and understandable summaries of the topic. They spell out the critical points in a manner that is understandable to the lay audience. As mentioned in the other thread, there's little point linking to something that a large proportion of your reading audience will not be able to understand.

Sure, Wikipedia isn't a valid final source for scholarly writings - but this is an internet BBS and not Nature magazine!

-MEC

 

[Deckerd]

Universities are starting up their own wiki references within (from my own experience at Edinburgh) whatever VLE they use. I think these will certainly remain closed user group but universities are never short to spot a commercial proposition, so it's possible that modules of subject matter may be offered on subscription or leased on to other HE institutions offering similar courses.

 

[Arrqh]

I agree with absolutely everything PlixTixiplik said.

What especially annoyed me in the Void thread was that for the context of the thread, the Wiki article was more then appropriate and probably more accurately addressed the topic then the Fox News article did (which has a rather sensationalist slant to it). No one complained over the validity of the original article but the second I linked to a Wiki page it started getting jumped on despite the fact that the article was well sourced... and if the people who had jumped on it had bothered to even read it, instead of dismissing it out of hand, it would have been apparent.

Wikipedia most certainly isn't a good primary source for serious research. But in a place like this, where Fox News articles are what threads get started around, it's very biased to dismiss Wiki as "not good enough." And to assume that just because something is on Wikipedia that it is inherently wrong is, in itself, quite wrong.

 

[Outpost4]

Thanks, TerriO, for starting this thread. I thought about doing it yesterday myself.

I think we can take the difference between scholarly research and internet opinions even further. I would say that Google is not a scholarly research tool. Google might direct you to a source that would then send you to a better source which might send you then to the primary source, but in itself, Google isn't a research tool. And yet, if I want to know something the first place I turn is Google. Even more, it usually works. I find out what I want to find out. But let's not confuse any of this, whether it be a Wiki like Memory Alpha or the third hit off of Google, with real scientific research.

 

[David cgc]

Arrghman said:
Wikipedia most certainly isn't a good primary source for serious research.

Technically speaking, Wikipedia isn't a primary source at all. It takes stuff other people have researched and collects and collates it. That's about as far as you can get from a Primary source.

 

[Ariadne]

I would tend to agree with everybody else, as far as serious research goes.

For Internet opinions... if somebody posts a link, and says "I am an expert in this subject and this is a good page", I'll believe them. Otherwise, I'm not going to trust them.

 

[scottydog]

I see vast inconsistencies in Wikipedia entries. Some entries are breathtakingly impressive and thorough. Some are utter crap. To their credit, the folks at Wikipedia put up "warnings" about the utter crap entries; they are seemingly begging for someone to come in and renovate badly written articles.

 

[FrontLine]

I'll have to agree with the others. Its a good place to start research, but by no means should it every be someone's only source. Everything for better or worse needs to be cross checked for accuracy when conducting research. Now if I could only convince my 14 year old of this....

 

[T'Bonz]

What y'all said. Good for a starting point or for a quick and easy explanation of something (haplogroups, anyone? ) but for real research, nyet.

 

[Tim]

I'll go with the choir here. I use Wikipedia for a basic overview of a topic and occasionally to reference well-defined things (e.g. tables of LaPlace transforms). I have yet to find any serious error in such entries.

For an actual write-up, though, it's all books and journal articles for me (found largely via PubMed).

 

[Ronald Held]

Only a place to start, certainly not the same quality as peer reviewed journals.

 

[TerriO]

For pop culture (things like characters from a TV show or quick plot synopses), I might be more inclined to use it as a quick reference for that, as that's where I've experienced it being more right than wrong, but for anything involving serious study and research? No way.

 

[Lindley]

You can frequently tell when a given article is reasonably accurate, if you're looking at other sources as well. I see no harm in citing Wikipedia if it happens to say something more concisely than another source.

 

[Manticore]

I don't argue for it as a source for actual research, and I'm not sure that anyone is arguing for it as such. But as a quick reference for debate boards like this one, I think that it's a wonderful source, for the most part. I'd hardly class this board as "serious research."

 

[Johnny Rico]

PlixTixiplik said:
So in general I will have to post a link to a non peer reviewed site that offers free viewing, and in that case why should it matter whether it is Wikipedia, BBC News, or the New York Times? All are written by non-specialists summarizing the actual scientific paper - and in some cases Wikipedia articles have contributions by actual specialists in those fields.

Well, that's the way I feel about all sources/articles written by "reporters" or columnists that aren't the so-called experts in the field they're reporting on.

For example, if I want a viewpoint on something that goes on at NASA, I'll go to the NASA website or perhaps Space.com, not the New York Times, Washington Post, or some other national rag.

One the other hand, if I don't quote a source, then 9 times out of 10, it's my OWN opinion based on my own knowledge on the matter. As I can think for myself and come up with my own conclusions be them wrong or right.

 

[Brent]

The fact that anyone can edit an article means it cannot be used as a factual source of info. It is merely an opinion based site since people can change the facts to their opinions or lies.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

I disagree - the fact that it can be edited by anyone does not necessarily make it "opinion" rather than fact. The possibility for malicious editing is certainly there, but to be fair, I have almost never seen a factual error in a geology or paleontology entry on Wikipedia, and any ones I have come across are very minor and usually relate to an oversimplification rather a complete falsehood. I doubt it is much different in biology or astronomy - I only have an interested layman's knowledge there but I still haven't noticed much in the way of errors. Do you routinely come across entries with major factual errors?

-MEC

 

[Deleted 2]

I'd rate wikipedia higher than most online sources. Higher than newspapers, for example.

 

[Ariadne]

Johnny Rico said:
Well, that's the way I feel about all sources/articles written by "reporters" or columnists that aren't the so-called experts in the field they're reporting on.

For example, if I want a viewpoint on something that goes on at NASA, I'll go to the NASA website or perhaps Space.com, not the New York Times, Washington Post, or some other national rag.

To be fair, most major news publications have dedicated science writers, with expertise in at least some kind of science.