Colleges that don't allow Wiki as a term paper source

[PlanetJosh]

Then can you just use the footnote sources at the bottom of Wiki articles? Those sources are by far mostly non wiki internet sources so they should generally not be affiliated with Wiki I think.

The class instructor can probably find out that most of your sources came from the footnotes on Wiki articles. So don't know if that would be an obstacle to this method meaning if the instructor rejects those sources too. But that would seem a bit unfair to the student.

 

[IronWing]

If you actually read the wiki sources (and the sources are credible*) and not just regurgitate wiki's take on those sources, you should be fine.


* If wiki quotes another summary source instead of an original source, you should follow the trail and quote the original source. For example, if wiki cites a gee-whiz article about some new scientific discovery, you should follow the trail to the original peer-reviewed paper presenting the discovery.

 

[Aikouka]

If you actually read the wiki sources (and the sources are credible*) and not just regurgitate wiki's take on those sources, you should be fine.


* If wiki quotes another summary source instead of an original source, you should follow the trail and quote the original source. For example, if wiki cites a gee-whiz article about some new scientific discovery, you should follow the trail to the original peer-reviewed paper presenting the discovery.

If I answered his question, I'd pretty much just say the same thing. So, uh... what he said.

 

[tynopik]

there is absolutely zero wrong with using wiki as a starting point and tracing back to the original sources, in fact that is probably his intent

 

[DaveSimmons]

What IronWing said. You do have read those cited sources carefully. Sometimes the trail leads to someone's blog or a rumor site, or the cited article was not a direct source but doesn't list its own sources at all. Hearsay gets repeated in a chain of references and becomes "fact."

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Or, you could just use the library and librarians instead of being a lazy ass.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Or, you could just use the library and librarians instead of being a lazy ass.

That's pretty much what they prefer. The internet is almost considered cheating, they see it as a low effort source because it's so easy to just google stuff. When I was in school "the internet" counted as one source. Did not matter how many different sites you looked at, the internet as a whole was considered a source. That forced you to have to use encyclopedias and such and actually go to the library. Otherwise you can just find 3-5 websites to fullfull the source requirements and call it a day.

That said I suppose if a Wiki source points to a book or something you can probably use that book as a source. But I would still go find it at the library to confirm that the information is actually in there. I'm sure the Wikipedia editors look closely at that, but still good to check for yourself, because the teacher will.

 

[zzuupp]

I must be old. It has been since elementary school when one could use an encyclopedia for a source.
Any college class required primary sources.

An online encyclopedia where anyone can edit, what could possibly be wrong ????

 

[TheVrolok]

Sounds like he just wants you to use primary sources. You can get those from starting at Wiki, but use the primary sources. Also, be critical of those sources.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Sounds like he just wants you to use primary sources. You can get those from starting at Wiki, but use the primary sources. Also, be critical of those sources.

It's probably not the case that a professor only wants you using primary sources. (Maybe in Grad School, where you're expected to be doing original work, even your own original research, but not anything short of that.)

But otherwise this is pretty normal - IME, encyclopedias don't really "count" as a source much past junior high, Wikipedia or otherwise.

You can absolutely use the bibliography at the end of an encyclopedia article as a reading list for your research - that's what they're for.

Thread subject implies there are colleges that DO allow Wikipedia as a term paper source. That's frightening.

 

[pauldun170]

Then can you just use the footnote sources at the bottom of Wiki articles? Those sources are by far mostly non wiki internet sources so they should generally not be affiliated with Wiki I think.

The class instructor can probably find out that most of your sources came from the footnotes on Wiki articles. So don't know if that would be an obstacle to this method meaning if the instructor rejects those sources too. But that would seem a bit unfair to the student.

What?
What school hires faculty that would allow a wikipedia entry as a source?

Wikipedia can be a resource in that it can point you to valid articles (which you should be reading) but any professor that allows wiki as a source better have a very good reason. Only one I can think of is assigning something about wikipedia.

 

[pauldun170]

You can absolutely use the bibliography at the end of an encyclopedia article as a reading list for your research - that's what they're for.

Thread subject implies there are colleges that DO allow Wikipedia as a term paper source. That's frightening.

I'm actually disgusted at the prospect of this being an accepted practice. That sort of crap doesn't even fly at our elementary school.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? They have teams of editors that will ensure all the information is correct. It's not like you can just go edit something with false info. They will revert it back, and if you do it all the time you will probably get banned. It's not like you can make up facts and put it up there. I think the main reasoning for not allowing it is that they want you to research deeper. If it's a research project the whole point of the project is to work for the information, not just type stuff in google and pick the first result.

 

[lxskllr]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? They have teams of editors that will ensure all the information is correct. It's not like you can just go edit something with false info. They will revert it back, and if you do it all the time you will probably get banned. It's not like you can make up facts and put it up there. I think the main reasoning for not allowing it is that they want you to research deeper. If it's a research project the whole point of the project is to work for the information, not just type stuff in google and pick the first result.

Anyone that says there's something wrong with wikipedia is a dumbass, but it's just a compendium of knowledge, and not a primary source. Primary sources should be used for research papers. Brittanica would be just as frowned on, or should be anyway.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? They have teams of editors that will ensure all the information is correct. It's not like you can just go edit something with false info. They will revert it back, and if you do it all the time you will probably get banned. It's not like you can make up facts and put it up there. I think the main reasoning for not allowing it is that they want you to research deeper. If it's a research project the whole point of the project is to work for the information, not just type stuff in google and pick the first result.

The problem is that there are no such things as "facts." Everything is interpreted according to the biases of the person reporting the facts. With wiki, you don't know the bias of the author. Aha! You say, 2+2 is still 4 no matter who reports it but, mathematics are not facts and, logical constructs have no merit without associated values attached which can be a problem.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Wiki has the problem of indirectly citing itself sometimes. Someone posts a wiki article without real proof, some lazy journalist writes an article using wiki as the source, then that article becomes the "proof" cited for the wiki entry. Voila!

 

[lxskllr]

Wiki has the problem of indirectly citing itself sometimes. Someone posts a wiki article without real proof, some lazy journalist writes an article using wiki as the source, then that article becomes the "proof" cited for the wiki entry. Voila!

Circular logic is the best logic cause it always connects ;^)

 

[dave_the_nerd]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? They have teams of editors that will ensure all the information is correct. It's not like you can just go edit something with false info. They will revert it back, and if you do it all the time you will probably get banned. It's not like you can make up facts and put it up there. I think the main reasoning for not allowing it is that they want you to research deeper. If it's a research project the whole point of the project is to work for the information, not just type stuff in google and pick the first result.

Those editors are volunteers and "YGWYPF".

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy

 

[lxskllr]

Those editors are volunteers and "YGWYPF".

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy

With a printed book you don't even get what you pay for. You get a year of updates(Yay! I get to check for redlines!) and after that, you can buy some new books. Otherwise, the errata is etched in stone.

edit:
Also, Wikipedia's accuracy compares very favorably to printed encyclopedias. They're roughly equal, and by some measures better when you factor in the longer average article length.

 

[cbrunny]

I wasn't able to get away with any source that wasn't peer reviewed, unless it was a first-hand account or a news article from a reputable paper. Wiki? GFY.