Wikipedia as a source?

[Revoltingest]

Just don't cite it as a primary resource. What is so hard to understand about that?

Use Wikipedia. Their articles are generally pretty good. What's more important is that they (the really good ones) use a LOT of sources and footnotes showing where the author gets his info. So scroll down, check out the resources and cite them in any scholastic or scientific paper.

If you don't, you WILL be ridiculed for being lazy. And you will have deserved it.

Go ahead & ridicule. I've already owned lazy.
We're not scholars writing papers worthy of publishing.
We're gadflies, malcontents, preachers & clowns all here to bicker,
converse, & debate. Seldom does anyone make a claim which is
worthy of original sources instead of Wikipedia's summary.
And if ever you spot an error, feel free to debunk it.
Sources....how often have you found that one is the problem?

Note also that cromulence of proffered facts is a minor problem
compared to the illogic used to reason from them, & the ignoring
of contraindicating ones.

 

[Erebus]

(edit) NOTE: This post 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. (end edit)

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.

While I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with using Wikipedia to find a summary of a given subject (I do it myself) you're exactly right that the best thing about the website is its list of sources.

Regardless of how accurate the article itself is, the list of references is very handy. It means that the website can serve as a springboard for further reading if you're so inclined.

 

[dianaiad]

Go ahead & ridicule. I've already owned lazy.
We're not scholars writing papers worthy of publishing.
We're gadflies, malcontents, preachers & clowns all here to bicker,
converse, & debate. Seldom does anyone make a claim which is
worthy of original sources instead of Wikipedia's summary.
And if ever you spot an error, feel free to debunk it.
Sources....how often have you found that one is the problem?

Yep. More times than is comfortable for the one using it. Out of context to the point that the actual source says the complete opposite of what the user claims it says, for instance....or sources that don't actually exist, or are unusable because they can't be accessed, or...??? That can be embarrassing. More to the point, and why I try not to use Wiki as a primary source, is that if I don't check THEIR sources, *I* will be the one embarrassed by the out of context, fake and inaccessible sources. I hate when that happens.

......and why not assume that the posters in here are as interested in truth, as intelligent, etc., as anybody else? Certainly I have noticed that none of us are all that humble about being college...and post grad...degree holders. We think, certainly.

Note also that cromulence of proffered facts is a minor problem
compared to the illogic used to reason from them, & the ignoring
of contraindicating ones.

Of course. However, illogic is best opposed by proper attribution.

So there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Haters weep!
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

 

[Jim]

@Revoltingest @dianaiad I want say again that my OP was very poorly worded. I was just reacting to a feeling that some people were misunderstanding what Wikipedia is, when they were citing it in support of what they were saying. I think that for some purposes it might be a mistake to cite a Wikipedia page as a stamp of authority on what a person is saying, but those purposes might not be part of everyone’s purposes in all of the debating.

If I had it to do over again, I think I would want to just point out what I thought some people were misunderstanding about it, without saying anything about how to use it.

 

[Jim]

Haters weep!
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Have you seen anyone saying that it isn’t?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you seen anyone saying that it isn’t?

Over the years I've seen many people hate on Wiki just for being Wiki, and claim it's not an accurate or valid source. I would argue it's perhaps better than anything in print as it has the benefit and advantage of real-time updates rather than having to wait for the publishing of the next edition, and it's open source meaning multiple sources of information can be considered and debated, and indeed many pages do have a discussions page.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. More times than is comfortable for the one using it. Out of context to the point that the actual source says the complete opposite of what the user claims it says, for instance....or sources that don't actually exist, or are unusable because they can't be accessed, or...??? That can be embarrassing. More to the point, and why I try not to use Wiki as a primary source, is that if I don't check THEIR sources, *I* will be the one embarrassed by the out of context, fake and inaccessible sources. I hate when that happens.

That doesn't sound like a Wikipedia problem at all.
If the sources don't actually exist, it's a poster problem...a common one.

......and why not assume that the posters in here are as interested in truth, as intelligent, etc., as anybody else? Certainly I have noticed that none of us are all that humble about being college...and post grad...degree holders. We think, certainly.

I observe that where posters fail, it's not the fault of any info from Wikipedia.
It's usually poor reasoning or a complete lack when presenting facts, links,
or videos as though those things present a cogent argument by their very
existence. Facts have value when used in a logical framework.
Sometimes facts are wrong or useful ones are overlooked.
Not one of those problems stems from using Wikipedia.

Of course. However, illogic is best opposed by proper attribution.

Attribution?
No, illogic is best addressed by explaining the flaw in the argument.

 

[sooda]

One can always use Britannica to cross check or jump start a search.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest @dianaiad I want say again that my OP was very poorly worded. I was just reacting to a feeling that some people were misunderstanding what Wikipedia is, when they were citing it in support of what they were saying. I think that for some purposes it might be a mistake to cite a Wikipedia page as a stamp of authority on what a person is saying, but those purposes might not be part of everyone’s purposes in all of the debating.

If I had it to do over again, I think I would want to just point out what I thought some people were misunderstanding about it, without saying anything about how to use it.

If the facts in Wikipedia are correct, then it's fine to cite it as a resource.
If someone objects to the proffered facts, & knows better, they're welcome
to justify better facts.
To expect more here is an impractical hurdle which would stifle conversation
severely. We are not scholars doing significant work or original research.
As I recall, RF does have a scholar's forum somewhere. It's poorly attended.

 

[Revoltingest]

One can always use Britannica to cross check or jump start a search.

Notice that there's a "Start your free trial" button.
I'm betting that one quickly runs into a paywall.
Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[sooda]

Notice that there's a "Start your free trial" button.
I'm betting that one quickly runs into a paywall.
Encyclopedia Britannica

That's odd.. I haven't run into a pay wall yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's odd.. I haven't run into a pay wall yet.

Perhaps they cut slack to ladybugs.
Groundskeepers, especially angry ones, not so much.

 

[Jim]

Perhaps they cut slack to ladybugs.
Groundskeepers, especially angry ones, not so much.

Have I ever seen you when you’re angry? I don’t remember seeing anything that looked like that to me. Is there any place where I can see what I’m missing? (@PopeADope) I need to see some anger from my gods sometimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have I ever seen you when you’re angry? I don’t remember seeing anything that looked like that to me. Is there any place where I can see what I’m missing? (@PopeADope) I need to see some anger from my gods sometimes.

I am a roiling cauldron of rage just below the surface.
I tries to control it, but if ever it escapes, then death
& destruction shall rain down from the heavens.
Or I might post a snarky limerick.

 

[Revoltingest]

Remembering that scholar's forum, I decided to look for it.
I can't find it. I also remember that it was by invitation only.
Yours truly was not invited. Who was?

 

[dianaiad]

Have you seen anyone saying that it isn’t?

I certainly didn't. (grin)

I'd check out the information THEY provided, too.

 

[dianaiad]

That doesn't sound like a Wikipedia problem at all.
If the sources don't actually exist, it's a poster problem...a common one.

I observe that where posters fail, it's not the fault of any info from Wikipedia.
It's usually poor reasoning or a complete lack when presenting facts, links,
or videos as though those things present a cogent argument by their very
existence. Facts have value when used in a logical framework.
Sometimes facts are wrong or useful ones are overlooked.
Not one of those problems stems from using Wikipedia.

Attribution?
No, illogic is best addressed by explaining the flaw in the argument.

Well, you have just confirmed and supported my point about Wiki. I have constantly stated that USING Wiki is a good idea; it's a great starting point, and you are correct. It DOES often have information on topics that are not even mentioned in standard encyclopedias.

You state that if there is a problem with a source, then it is a poster problem, not a Wiki problem. You are absolutely correct: someone who does not check out the sources Wiki uses has the problem.

THAT is why I have stated that one should check the sources and cite those. Remember, though, it was Wiki which provided the sources to check.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you have just confirmed and supported my point about Wiki. I have constantly stated that USING Wiki is a good idea; it's a great starting point, and you are correct. It DOES often have information on topics that are not even mentioned in standard encyclopedias.

You state that if there is a problem with a source, then it is a poster problem, not a Wiki problem. You are absolutely correct: someone who does not check out the sources Wiki uses has the problem.

THAT is why I have stated that one should check the sources and cite those. Remember, though, it was Wiki which provided the sources to check.

Some things are not worth verifying for casual conversation.
When was the last time you found significant error in Wikipedia?

 

[dianaiad]

Some things are not worth verifying for casual conversation.
When was the last time you found significant error in Wikipedia?

Just offhand, without checking?


About two weeks ago I was reading a Wiki article about climate change deniers. where the author was accusing one man of being an absolute denier. The quote referenced, however, was this man saying that the earth changes climate constantly; that humans are NOT completely responsible for it, but that we can and do make things worse. He went on to illustrate the power of humans to screw things up (and to fix them) by referring to the hole in the ozone layer (remember that? It's still up there) that was caused by human activity...and then when the cause was discovered, banning fluorocarbons globally not only stopped the growth of the hole, it's shrinking and will be gone by the end of the century.

Not exactly the stance of a 'climate change denier.'

.....and it would be, I think, important to any conversation about climate change, I think, casual or not.

So...I check the references.

Mostly.