Wikipedia is not a substitute for actual research.

[fallingblood]

This has been something that has been getting on my nerves quite a bit lately. Before I go on though, I do want to say that Wikipedia does have a purpose. For general information, it can be nice, or a quick reference to give others, it can be fine. However, it is not a scholarly source, and should not be used to replace such.

My main problem is that I have spent quite a few years now in religious studies. I have learned Greek (still actually learning), I'm learning Hebrew, I'm brushing up on Arabic, and I've learned enough French and German to get me by right now until I have more time to learn them more fully. I have attended countless lectures by scholars. I have attended hundreds of hours of classes in this field, conducted by people who have doctorates in their respective fields. I've read probably over a thousand works (this is including journal articles, books, peer's works, etc.), and not to mention a plethora of documentaries and other videos on the subject. And to top that off, I have done a number of scholarly writing on the subject for my classes, some of which included extended research on topics, as well as independent study, all done under the guidance of experts.

Now, I am by no means alone in doing this sort of work, and I don't mention that to give myself credibility, because it doesn't. However, after having done all of this research, putting forth the effort to actually study scholarly sources, and devoting the time to a better understanding of the subjects, it becomes increasingly annoying to see it all discredited because someone can find a random Wikipedia link (or even website by some random person), and assumes that it is the end all source.

Wikipedia though is not the end all source. It is not the source that all others are judged by. And simply, it can, and does contain errors. And simply, it is an annoying source when it is used to discredit everything else, as there is no reason that it should. Sure, it can contain some good information, but simply quoting a Wikipedia entry, and assuming that it is the source of sources, regardless of content, simply is foolish.

So this is kind of a rant, and kind of an argument as to why Wikipedia is not a substitute.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I used the wiki a lot in my research, mainly to get Greek and Latin references - I didn't read the articles. I just clicked on an article and went down to the bottom for references, and that saved me a lot of time. I also found that the dates were pretty good for ancients (when Socrates lived/died) and families in the Roman empire (who was who's cousin, etc). Wiki is a fast and reasonably accurate source for that kind of thing.

The wiki is useful for what it is: an elementary introduction to a topic. It's not a good enough source on which to build an argument.

Then again, I witnessed a phd level student give a lecture entirely from the wiki. I hated every second of it and I hate remembering it.

 

[Rakhel]

I admit that I do use wiki as a general reference when I need a quick find, but I can do that as easily with google. However, it doesn't help that google makes wiki it's top result.

I do agree that it is not the end all of info as it can be edited by anyone. Hence the "edit" tab an any article on it's site.

The only thing I do like about it, is that you may find many references that you can peruse yourself.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The only thing I will say in the defense of Wiki is that its on the web and therefore available for linking to. How much of the research that you have done could you actually show here? Having said that, I agree with your rant totally and I think there are a lot of folks here who will.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are studies out there now on the accuracy of the great wiki.

Because of all the experts that contribute, I've only heard good things about it. The wiki is by far the most comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia in the world. It's so powerful, in fact, that it's inaccurate to call it an encyclopedia. But to cite it and use it in an academic paper or debate is anathema.

 

[Quagmire]

Here's an article about the reliability of Wikipedia:

"Reliability
Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia


The crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia's content creation means that anyone can add falsehoods to, or vandalize, the site. However, it also enables people to easily correct such mistakes.
As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[126] Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[127] the insertion of spurious information,[128] vandalism, and similar problems.

Wikipedia has often been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency;[20] additionally, critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[129] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[19] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[130] Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[131] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[132][133] Co-founder Jimmy Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citeable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[134]"

source: Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Personally I think that will change. I think that very soon the wiki will make itself acceptable to academic standards - at least on the level of record of a legitimate viewpoint.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then again, I witnessed a phd level student give a lecture entirely from the wiki. I hated every second of it and I hate remembering it.

I remember a phone call that my roommate got when I was in school.

Apparently, he had an assignment for his high school computer science class: build a web site. He was being graded on things like the layout and HTML; the content didn't matter, so he had fun with it and made it all about spontaneous human combustion. He threw in a bunch of completely made-up accounts of different modern and historical cases and attributed them all to himself, but he put "Dr." in front of his name and "PhD" after. He posted it online, submitted the link to his teacher, got his grade and forgot about it.

Years later when we were roommates, he got a phone call, which he described to us after he got off the phone. Someone had looked up his name in the phone book and got his parents, who gave them his number at school. The woman calling was some sort of grad student... she called up to request an interview with the "doctor". When my roommate explained that he created the site when he was 15 and all the content was made up, she responded with "but that was the main source for my thesis!"

 

[Panda]

I remember a phone call that my roommate got when I was in school.

Apparently, he had an assignment for his high school computer science class: build a web site. He was being graded on things like the layout and HTML; the content didn't matter, so he had fun with it and made it all about spontaneous human combustion. He threw in a bunch of completely made-up accounts of different modern and historical cases and attributed them all to himself, but he put "Dr." in front of his name and "PhD" after. He posted it online, submitted the link to his teacher, got his grade and forgot about it.

Years later when we were roommates, he got a phone call, which he described to us after he got off the phone. Someone had looked up his name in the phone book and got his parents, who gave them his number at school. The woman calling was some sort of grad student... she called up to request an interview with the "doctor". When my roommate explained that he created the site when he was 15 and all the content was made up, she responded with "but that was the main source for my thesis!"

Why you should use things like journals and textbooks. Or academic search engines

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When my roommate explained that he created the site when he was 15 and all the content was made up, she responded with "but that was the main source for my thesis!"

Hilarious!

 

[Kathryn]

If I'm seriously studying something, I go to the links under the Wiki article.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If I'm seriously studying something, I go to the links under the Wiki article.

That should be a bumper sticker, Kat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally I think that will change. I think that very soon the wiki will make itself acceptable to academic standards - at least on the level of record of a legitimate viewpoint.

I hope so, because Wikipedia has a huge advantage over traditional encyclopedias: the "Talk" page.

With a traditional encyclopedia, the article is all you get. With Wikipedia, anyone who cares to look can "see how the sausage is made" and look at the arguments for and against different points in the article and find out the process that led to it being the way it is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hope so, because Wikipedia has a huge advantage over traditional encyclopedias: the "Talk" page.

With a traditional encyclopedia, the article is all you get. With Wikipedia, anyone who cares to look can "see how the sausage is made" and look at the arguments for and against different points in the article and find out the process that led to it being the way it is.

Well, it's a change that wiki has to make or it won't grow. There's a whole community talking intelligently about stuff that isn't being ignored by scholars, but scholar's can't use it in their discourse. Eventually I think that a major part of what makes the wiki reliable - grad students and professors - will abandon it if it doesn't bear fruit.

 

[Willamena]

It seems the rate of growth of software, especially on the Internet, is hideously slow compared to the growth of hardware.

 

[Kathryn]

That should be a bumper sticker, Kat.

Let me clarify - I don't use Wiki only, nor is it my preferred method of research - but it's a good jumping off point in some cases. When I DO use Wiki, I refer to the links below the article.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Let me clarify - I don't use Wiki only, nor is it my preferred method of research - but it's a good jumping off point in some cases. When I DO use Wiki, I refer to the links below the article.

That's too long for a bumper sticker.

 

[Kathryn]

That's too long for a bumper sticker.

True dat. How 'bout this:

Wiki - sometimes OK, sometimes sucks.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

True dat. How 'bout this:

Wiki - sometimes OK, sometimes sucks.

Much better and not far from the official Wikipedia bumper sticker.

"We make the Internet not Suck."

 

[The Neo Nerd]

As a uni student I am not allowed to reference Wikipedia. However I use it as a first port of call for general info and sometimes use the links at the bottom of the page.