Wikipedia as a source?

[dianaiad]

((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.))

I wouldn't know. The last computer game i played was Candy Crush, and the last game involving 'roles' was an episode of Zelda, about three years ago.

I'm just weird, I suppose.

 

[dianaiad]

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!"

Both things are actually pretty accurate; Wikipedia IS pretty accurate...until it's not. The problem is, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, anybody can post anything they like. That's why so many of the good wiki articles post so many sources.

The second POV is also accurate. Posting wiki articles as support for one's POV leaves one wide open to just such ridicule, deserved ridicule. What it shows mostly is laziness. If you go to Wiki for support, then it just is another couple of mouseclicks to get to the source wiki used. If one finds that more reading is required, so that one's opinion has to change, or (gasp) that one actually LEARNS something more, then hey; that's a good thing.

 

[dianaiad]

do not cite the source wikipedia directs you to unless you have read the original source

Well, duh.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

That's one of the best summaries of Wiki I've ever seen. It's a bit ironic that posting an Encyclopedia Britannica article is just dandy...and a printed (and often, the internet version) IS more likely to be out of date than wikipedia, which should not be used as a primary source.

Which is why Wiki is such a good starting point, I think. those who post to their pet topics tend to be a bit obsessive about them, and generally try to keep them up to date and accurate.

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

I use it. A lot. I don't refer to it...mostly. I have used it more in here than anywhere else.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I plan to continue quoting & linking to Wikipedia.
Anyone who opposes that is welcome to snitch to the mods.
And if there are any rolling donuts in the neighborhood,
take a flying leap at them. (You know what I mean.)

 

[SalixIncendium]

And if there are any rolling donuts in the neighborhood,
take a flying leap at them. (You know what I mean.)

Can some of them be crullers? I like crullers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can some of them be crullers? I like crullers.

Sure, why not.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I have found Wikipedia to be reliable and I use it extensively for knowledge common and uncommon.

To convince me otherwise you will need to provide an example of its unreliability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Unfortunately for those not entered in a college or university peer reviewed articles

Can some of them be crullers? I like crullers.

Blueberry scones for me please.

 

[Jim]

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

Thanks for asking. No.

 

[sealchan]

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.

So are we posting here in an academic journal?

I understand the limits of any encyclopedia and if you want to drill down into the specifics and such you need to go further than an encyclopedia, but I see wikipedia as an immensely valuable resource. It is full of sincere peer reviewed content. I have used it extensively and never found it or any other crowd sourced wiki to be generally deceitful or misleading.

 

[Jim]

My OP was poorly worded. It looked to me like some people were misunderstanding what Wikipedia is, when they were citing it in support of their views. However that may be, I like the discussion that happened in this thread.

 

[sealchan]

Both things are actually pretty accurate; Wikipedia IS pretty accurate...until it's not. The problem is, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, anybody can post anything they like. That's why so many of the good wiki articles post so many sources.

The second POV is also accurate. Posting wiki articles as support for one's POV leaves one wide open to just such ridicule, deserved ridicule. What it shows mostly is laziness. If you go to Wiki for support, then it just is another couple of mouseclicks to get to the source wiki used. If one finds that more reading is required, so that one's opinion has to change, or (gasp) that one actually LEARNS something more, then hey; that's a good thing.

Certainly not ridicule. If one can post opinion pieces for discussion then why not an article moderated and contributed to by many sincere sources.

What about citing a textbook? I think that wikipedia, compared with the old World Book Encyclopedia I had as a child, approaches the quality of a textbook at times.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

It is all in the expectation. In some ways Wikipedia is not too different from a diccionary, far as actual discussion goes.

There is also the matter of how controversial or pseudo-controversial the subject matter is. And, as I noticed being an used of the lusophone version, how much interest in spreading the information there is.

It can be a superb source, and often is. But as in anything that one is serious about achieving understanding, some care should be taken in learning of the main lines of thought and also of the main objections to those.

To a large extent the criticisms about the reliability of Wikipedia are suitable as waking up calls for how feeble other sources are, without often being questioned nearly enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

((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.))

One of these days I will take the time to try and understanding what you mean by roleplaying.

I expect you to resent it. But so the dice roll.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Some 'scholars' have incredibly colored glasses. I think it best to try to read between the lines of all that you read. Always keeop in mind whether or not the writer has an agenda.

 

[columbus]

So are we posting here in an academic journal?

I understand the limits of any encyclopedia and if you want to drill down into the specifics and such you need to go further than an encyclopedia, but I see wikipedia as an immensely valuable resource. It is full of sincere peer reviewed content. I have used it extensively and never found it or any other crowd sourced wiki to be generally deceitful or misleading.

This!
I fully expect university level standards to be much higher than if someone like me wants a broad overview of some uncontroversial subject, like salmon or the history of England.
Tom


ETA ~This is a bit of a problem here on RF because we mostly discuss highly controversial subjects like religion and politics.~

 

[Augustus]

Both things are actually pretty accurate; Wikipedia IS pretty accurate...until it's not. The problem is, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, anybody can post anything they like. That's why so many of the good wiki articles post so many sources.

It is peer-reviewed, although not in the way an academic journal is. People are constantly checking and looking for errors, although obviously it is a far from perfect process.

Accuracy varies depending on topic, and many articles tend to lack nuance and critical insight. Having a large number of sources doesn't necessarily relate to source quality either.

The second POV is also accurate. Posting wiki articles as support for one's POV leaves one wide open to just such ridicule, deserved ridicule. What it shows mostly is laziness. If you go to Wiki for support, then it just is another couple of mouseclicks to get to the source wiki used. If one finds that more reading is required, so that one's opinion has to change, or (gasp) that one actually LEARNS something more, then hey; that's a good thing.

It depends on the kind of topic you are discussing and how it is being discussed.

You might quote wiki because you know it is accurate and accessing other sources can be time consuming. If the other person isn't relying on high quality sources then it's often not worth the effort. If someone makes the effort to use high quality sources then I'll usually reciprocate, but people rarely do.

The ridicule tends to be from people who reject it because it disagrees with them, not because they have a high level understanding or better range of sources. If you think wiki is wrong, then it shouldn't be difficult to explain why beyond an out of hand dismissal.

In general though, you could post 20 peer-reviewed sources and it won't change someone's opinion, so you only do so when you find it interesting/entertaining enough to make it worth the effort.

 

[Thief]

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.

I get that....but...

like any source.....it was written by a human

like the scriptures we quote here

I do on occasion make note.....it is written
and sometimes to be quick....I paraphrase

I do so and say as I do so

if it's my handiwork or someone else's

and we are soooooo often at the mercy of what was written before us

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Those providers can be anyone, you, me, trump the pope, the junky down the street. Anyone with an opinion can sign up as a wikipedia contributor / editor add or change any article they want.

In the past it was thick with misinformation. Now the plan is to check any new/updated wiki. This can take time, and is sometimes missed.

My view, check the references at the end of the article and take wikipedia with as much salt as needed.

Heres the joining page for anyone who feels they can contribute
Join Wikipedia