Wikipedia as a source?

[Subduction Zone]

I taught a class to students on how best to use Wikipedia. It had a power point slide show and everything. It was a lot of fun.

The upshot was...never, never, never use wikipedia as a primary source. If you use wikipedia as a source, and CITE it, you will fail the assignment in any class of mine, and you probably won't get a decent grade in any other class, either.

However, Wikipedia is a great first place to go when you start collecting data. Most wiki articles provide sources. Go there. Cite them.

It's also a great place to go if you can't find information about your topic anywhere ELSE. Again, wiki will probably have an article on it, and that article will probably provide sources. Great time saver, wikipedia.

Just don't ever, ever, cite it or use it as a primary source.

Ever.

Unless, of course, you are on a religious debate forum and you think you can get away with it.

Since most creationists can only raise PRATT's Wikipedia is usually a more than adequate source for that. It beats sites where people are required to swear not to use the scientific method hands down. But for more serious debates it is a good starting point for exactly the reasons that you cited. For example AGW is closer to cutting edge and one must find other sources than Wiki.

 

[Enoch07]

Great time saver, wikipedia.

Meh if someone doesn't approve of the info from wiki they can challenge it with citations of their own.

If the info is invalid it should be easy enough to dispute.

 

[Jim]

Unless, of course, you are on a religious debate forum and you think you can get away with it.

((Exactly. People can, and do, and will continue to do so. I keep forgetting that all of the debating here is a kind of roleplaying game, where the lore includes media and faction stories. I see now that for roleplaying purposes it can include Wikipedia as a primary source. Also, for roleplaying purposes, it doesn’t matter how much or how little what people say resembles the offline world of actual experience. In fact, the whole point of it to escape from that world.

An interesting thing about it is a kind of phasing where different players are in different rp environments, debating with each other as if they were all in the same one. Another curiosity is that in the debating each player does their own scoring for all players, and is their own judge of who is winning, which they sometimes judge by how many likes they get.

One of my concerns has been that some of it looks more poisonous to me than some other games. Another concern is that those effects could be leaking out into that offline world. A good side of is that beneficial effects could also be leaking out into the offline world.))

 

[Augustus]

You post Wikipedia in support of your point of view:

"Actually, studies have shown Wikipedia is as, if not more, accurate than other encyclopaedias. It cites many accurate, peer reviewed sources written by genuine experts which you can can check yourself and should be considered accurate unless otherwise demonstrated."

Someone posts Wikipedia to refute your point of view:

"OMG! LOL! Copy/paste wikipedia LOL! How cute! You cant even read actual sources! I'll send you a pop-up book and one of those chewable books babies read in the bath to help you 'research' next time. Wikipedia! ROFL!"

 

[The Reverend Bob]

((Exactly. People can, and do, and will continue to do so. I keep forgetting that all of the debating here is a kind of roleplaying game, where the lore includes media and faction stories. I see now that for roleplaying purposes it can include Wikipedia as a primary source. Also, for roleplaying purposes, it doesn’t matter how much or how little what people say resembles the offline world of actual experience. In fact, the whole point of it to escape from that world.

An interesting thing about it is a kind of phasing where different players are in different rp environments, debating with each other as if they were all in the same one. Another curiosity is that in the debating each player does their own scoring for all players, and is their own judge of who is winning, which they sometimes judge by how many likes they get.

One of my concerns has been that some of it looks more poisonous to me than some other games. Another concern is that those effects could be leaking out into that offline world. A good side of is that beneficial effects could also be leaking out into the offline world.))

Jim, did you actually think it was feasible to have a reasonable conversation on the internet?

 

[Jim]

Jim, did you actually think it was feasible to have a reasonable conversation on the internet?

I know it is feasible, because I’ve seen it happen.

I’ll admit though, that I’ve had some illusions about it that have been very hard for me lose.

 

[oldbadger]

And that is pretty much what is going on here. The study of both the Babi Movement and the Baha'i Faith is and has almost always been monopolized by academics who are members of this religion themselves and who are required by their religion to have their works approved by the administration before they are published. This results in little innovation, and most of what is published simply echoes Shoghi Effendi's hagiographies God Passes By and The Dawn-Breakers and works by people such as Balyuzi (a Baha'i "Hand of the Cause") and Taherzadeh (a former UHJ member). So these kinds of sources ultimately rule as majority. Any sources from critical academics (people like MacEoin and Cole, or even Browne) are marginalized, while the Baha'is who stalk these pages are allowed to cite their own hagiographies as gospel. If you try to add these critical sources, they'll accuse them of being "anti-Baha'i" (as if that discredits them) or accuse you of "original research."

Fortunately for 'balance' (and quite a lot of truth) the internet provides for the writings of those who know how distorted and deceptive Bahai writings and Bahai history can be.
And there are forums like RF to provide for clearer pictures.

As far as Wiki gores, I find that it can be very useful, because mostly anybody can give their individual knowledge and experience to the world through it.

 

[blü 2]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

Hmm. I think of Wikipedia as well-run, self-correcting, sometimes uneven, sometimes out of date, on occasions, though rare ones in my experience, outright wrong; and very handy.

Overall, I don't hesitate to use it or to refer to it.

Of course, it helps if you have some knowledge of the discipline in which your question arises. In areas like QM and advanced maths, and quite a few et ceteras, I may well not know enough to tell whether I'm being misinformed or not. In areas like history and literature, and again et cetera, I can generally rely on my antenna as to when I should double-check.

So I wonder if you've had a set of experiences that lead you to express this doubt; or whether you're simply pointing out that it's not going to be reliable 100% of the time.

 

[oldbadger]

In a University you'd be labelled academically dishonest and it would be embarrassing if the source did not support the claim the wiki editor thought it did.

Classics professor straight up told my class never to use wikipedia for classical studies because any academic sources are likely to be cited by non-scholars who dabble in the subject but do not keep up with the developments in the discipline, and as a result most entries are outdated in one respect or another.

But that's what an elitist professor might say.

Several years ago, here on RF, a number of 'historic Jesus' students and scholars debated fiercely amongst themselves.
In order to push an individual point of view a debater could look through the aclaimed lists of 'experts', find a document that agreed with their pov and then quote it as an 'Expert Opinion'. Then other debaters could retrieve an opposing opinion written by other 'experts' and quote that.
In the end some RF members were just waving 'experts' at each other.

And so the thing is..... that there are no sure 'experts'....... and once that fact is grasped the field of debate is open to everybody, not just a bunch of 'experts'.

 

[sooda]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

Too bad.

 

[Jim]

Hmm. I think of Wikipedia as well-run, self-correcting, sometimes uneven, sometimes out of date, on occasions, though rare ones in my experience, outright wrong; and very handy.

Overall, I don't hesitate to use it or to refer to it.

Of course, it helps if you have some knowledge of the discipline in which your question arises. In areas like QM and advanced maths, and quite a few et ceteras, I may well not know enough to tell whether I'm being misinformed or not. In areas like history and literature, and again et cetera, I can generally rely on my antenna as to when I should double-check.

So I wonder if you've had a set of experiences that lead you to express this doubt; or whether you're simply pointing out that it's not going to be reliable 100% of the time.

((I thought some people were misunderstanding what it is, when they were citing it in support of their views, but I forgot again that all the debates here are roleplaying games, so that doesn’t matter.))

 

[oldbadger]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

The above is easy to refute.
Suppose we were debating about..... say........ how the Italian Vespa scooter was developed, and why it's engine was not mounted centrally.

Now I snatched that subject from the blue, but if you enter 'Vespa scooter' in to Wikipedia you will get a most clear and informative entry to read.

We only need one example to show that your claims about Wiki are wrong. There it is, above.

But there are hundreds of thousands of others, you know.

 

[oldbadger]

I forgot again that all the debates here are roleplaying games, so that doesn’t matter.))

For you, maybe.......

I came to RF many years ago, and have learned more about my chosen subject than I could ever have learned anywhere else.

If you think that RF is so shallow, why bother being on it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Wikipedia is not a source of information about anything but Wikipedia. It’s a guide to sources. When quoting from Wikipedia, please quote and cite from the original sources.

(edited to add clarification)
It looks to me like Wikipedia pages are summaries of information (and misinformation) from sources approved by some of its providers. What the summaries say may or may not be what the sources actually say. Possibly most of what is in them is not currently being contested by anyone with editing privileges. I don’t see any of that as a reason for citing a Wikipedia page as a source for debating purposes.

We can slam Wikipedia all day long for not being a reliable source for information, and in rare cases, you'd be right. But for the most part vandalism and inaccuracies are corrected quickly.

"Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[17] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[18]"

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but all edits are recorded and monitored.

Wikipedia:Quality control - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is good for quick reference, but in doing serious research, it's best to peer reviewed articles.

I will continue to use Wikipedia as a source for information, at least for cursory research. If you don't like it...

Salix,
Using Wikipedia articles to defend Wikipedia articles

 

[SalixIncendium]

As an afterthought, I wonder how well a WikiBible would go over and how accurate it would be.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yeah, for a basic overview of a subject it is OK but you still have to be careful about disinformation. People do vandalize it still, even the science pages

Vandalism is typically fixed extremely quickly...so quickly that most never see it. See my comments in post #36 of this thread.

 

[SalixIncendium]

do not cite the source wikipedia directs you to unless you have read the original source

(I win because mine is bigger)

 

[Revoltingest]

Wikipedia is convenient and a good jumping board but far from the "best" resource we have on any topic. The best summaries come from the scholars studying fields themselves.

Scholars are each limited to their area of expertise.
But Wikipedia covers everything.
And which scholar should one trust? This gets tricky
when there's controversy. Wikipedia addresses that.
So it's still the best resource....unless you prefer
Uncyclopedia.

Did you know...

• ... that tickle fights are a common occurrence in soccer? (Pictured)

• ... that we must nuke the whales, or the hippies will win?
• ... that in the Mesozoic Era, toasters ruled the earth?
• ... that, because of Anonymous' credibility, he has become a frequent source of information for news articles?
• ... that 90% of all video game high scores are set by one guy called "AAA"?
• ... that in some parts of Europe, glory holes are preferred to bidets?
• ... that when a grizzly bear becomes excited sexually it is known as a jizzly bear?
• ... that if you die in Canada, you die in real life?

 

[blü 2]

((I thought some people were misunderstanding what it is, when they were citing it in support of their views, but I forgot again that all the debates here are roleplaying games, so that doesn’t matter.))

Just to be clear, you're not saying that arguing a point of view is necessarily roleplaying?

 

[dianaiad]

Meh if someone doesn't approve of the info from wiki they can challenge it with citations of their own.

If the info is invalid it should be easy enough to dispute.

Well, that's one way to extend a conversation and raise the temperature level.