Use of Wikipedia as a Source

[Left Coast]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

 

[Revoltingest]

Pro-Wikipedia here.

BTW, I've done a teensy bit'o editing in Conservapedia.
Useful stuff...not malicious.

 

[Vee]

I like Wikipedia. Maybe there are some inaccuracies here and there, but overall, I find it pretty good.

 

[Polymath257]

When I was younger, we had to go to the library to look up an article in an encyclopedia. Those articles were generally informative, but were often seriously out of date. They were usually a good starting point for research, but would not have been the last word.

I see wikipedia in a somewhat similar light. The articles, especially those that are well referenced, tend to have good information. Occasionally, there is something not entirely accurate, but even then there are often links to sources to learn more.

In a comparison between the two, I strongly prefer wikipedia. The information tends to be more extensive, often more accurate, and has pointers for doing further research. Neither should be considered the last word on a subject, but they are very good first stops.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Pro-Wikipedia. While there's a chance for not so much inaccuracies sometimes as misleading wordings in articles, I find a Wikipedia article is usually enough for a discussion that isn't planned to be super technical.

So if I wanted to talk an obscure subject, I'd link a Wikipedia article. But if some seasoned debater wants to question me later, it may take research more technical for us to debate at that point.

 

[McBell]

I am neither for or against Wikipedia.

That being said, I do like to start researching with wikipedia.
I lost count the number of times a wiki article has been a major assist in avoiding dead ends.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

Majority of it isn't peer-reviewed and anyone can change it regardless the sources at the bottom-that's why. What one can do is use Wiki as an idea and find a peer-reviewed source that talks about the same information. Therefore, even though you got the information from Wiki (excluding verbatim quotes), you still have the primary source to "show."

With that, I only go to wiki, if I do, for an idea of what people are talking about and then find a site(s) from the actual sources and cross-check it that way. For example, wiki can talk about Buddhism but it would be a lot more efficient to go to say, accesstoinsight to get a full range of the Buddha's actual dialogues, essays from different practitioners, scholars, etc, and just a general way of studying the Dharma. Gives context.

Finding cross-references, though, is like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

[sun rise]

There was a comparison done some time ago and Wikipedia did just fine.

I'm a minor editor there - occasionally tweaking some entries a tiny bit outside of being slapped down once.

For example, the wok page said the size was 9"... and I had an 8" one so I updated that number with a reference.

Other changes of mine have been similar in scope.

 

[sun rise]

Majority of it isn't peer-reviewed and anyone can change it regardless the sources at the bottom-that's why. What one can do is use Wiki as an idea and find a peer-reviewed source that talks about the same information. Therefore, even though you got the information from Wiki (excluding verbatim quotes), you still have the primary source to "show."

I agree. It's helpful sometimes to go to the references.

 

[Altfish]

It is a good starting point but needs checking if you are doing anything serious, especially political.

 

[McBell]

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of the times that wikipedia is dismissed the dismissal is by the one the wiki disagrees with?

Seems to me it pretty high.

 

[sun rise]

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of the times that wikipedia is dismissed the dismissal is by the one the wiki disagrees with?

Seems to me it pretty high.

I've never disagreed with what's written to the point of dismissing it. There have been "wars" over controversial topics such as Donald Trump but wikipedia has done a great job of locking those down to prevent "revision wars".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like others I find Wiki perfectly fine for settled science, history, etc.. Cutting edge stuff is less reliable. But even then it usually has links to sources which makes it at the very least a good starting point when one is trying to answer a problem. And the vast number of editors has been shown to increase Wiki's reliability, not lower it. If someone enters malicious edits, which appear to be rather rare there. They are quickly removed.

Years ago on a different website I had a debate with a person that had the ability to edit on Wikipedia about how reliable it was. Oddly he had the opinion that it was not all that reliable. When he told me that he could edit an article I told him to change one to prove his point. Instead he proved mine. He did edit an article. He did so by adding valid information to an existing article. He did not add false information which was clearly implied by our arguments. If he had put false information in an article he would have shown that I was wrong. When I asked why he did not put false information in he said that he did not want to risk losing his editing abilities. Thus providing support for my point and refuting his. These days one does not get to sign on and edit any article. The first few edits that a person makes are monitored. One has to earn trust to edit without having one's edits checked first. That extra step seems to have eliminated trolls that do not want to waste time getting approved before trying to wreak temporary havoc.

 

[McBell]

I've never disagreed with what's written to the point of dismissing it. There have been "wars" over controversial topics such as Donald Trump but wikipedia has done a great job of locking those down to prevent "revision wars".

I have seen many a times right here of RF where wiki is dismissed out of hand by the side that wiki disagrees with.
And more than once I have seen that same person post links to wiki that agree with them.

Now don't get me wrong.
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with what is in a wiki article and dismissing it out of hand with out even looking at the article.
And some articles are much better than others.

 

[ChristineM]

Back when I was an undergrad (2006-2010), almost all my professors poo-pooed using Wikipedia as a source of credible information. I found this to be a little too rigid, and today I think Wikipedia is even more credible than it was 10 years ago.

Wiki's articles are usually quite well sourced in my experience, and even note when claims are made that aren't common knowledge but don't have a citation to support them.

While the site's content can, in principle, by edited by basically anybody, my understanding is that a team of moderators tightly control changes that are made and sanction users who input incorrect/unsupported information, and correct egregious errors quickly.

Clearly it's not an infallible source (nothing is, IMO), but I think Wiki doesn't get the credit it's due. If someone cites a Wiki article, it's worth reading through it and verifying its citations.

Am I wrong? Anyone still anti-Wiki?

I'll use Wikipedia on occasion if the references are good with the knowledge that it can be edited by anyone, mostly anonymously.

Here is a Wikipedia article on the accuracy of Wikipedia, it rates itself around 80% accurate

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia.

I've also argued against it often using the editing history to back up my argument.

 

[Augustus]

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of the times that wikipedia is dismissed the dismissal is by the one the wiki disagrees with?

Seems to me it pretty high.

Why would you dismiss it if you thought it was correct though?

A more pertinent question is how often do people touting wiki as an authority do so because it says what they find ideologically or circumstantially convenient?

It's a useful resource, provides lots of accurate information, but also sometimes contains some quite glaring errors.

The fact it is usually quite reliable makes many people take it as gospel on issues they are unfamiliar with and highly resistant to the idea it might not be accurate.

 

[Deidre]

I like using it when I'm truly clueless about a topic, word or historical event. Serves as a spring board for me to look at other sources, once I get the summary from Wiki.

 

[McBell]

Why would you dismiss it if you thought it was correct though?

A more pertinent question is how often do people touting wiki as an authority do so because it says what they find ideologically or circumstantially convenient?

It's a useful resource, provides lots of accurate information, but also sometimes contains some quite glaring errors.

The fact it is usually quite reliable makes many people take it as gospel on issues they are unfamiliar with and highly resistant to the idea it might not be accurate.

Fair enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wikipedia advantages....
- Other encyclopedic sources want money.
- For breaking news, it's swiftly updated.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I have seen many a times right here of RF where wiki is dismissed out of hand by the side that wiki disagrees with.
And more than once I have seen that same person post links to wiki that agree with them.

That's a very specific scenario.

I might have unintentionally did that once. But I was trying not to see things black and white, right or wrong, so much as say.... "I'm seeing things from this side of the coin and you're seeing things from the other side."

What I was saying in my previous reply is that sometimes if you just kind of skim the Wikipedia article, you can get the wrong impression. If you don't know the whole backstory, you can even get an article wrong provided you don't allow your thoughts/conclusions on the matter to be more or less peer reviewed.

But yeah, on online, I have seen people before that as a tactic (well, a cheating tactic), criticize otherwise good sources, kind of knocking down sources that way, limiting the information the other side can show them or the crowd. With the hopes of winning that way.