Daily Princetonian columnist endorses Wikipedia

[IEC]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
That's silly. Citing any encyclopedia in a serious research paper is a no-no, whether it's Wikipedia, Britannica, or whatever.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: sonambulo
Wikipedia fuckin blows. Jimmy Wales fuckin blows.

It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

Agreed.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I agree it should, as there is no harm done if the information does happen to be wrong, when in a school setting. The teacher grades it, the student gets their grade, then it's over.

Now if Wikipedia should be considered valid for every day information such as if someone needs information to ensure their fire suppression system is safe, or how to properly mix two chemicals, then no, as assuming that information is right when it's not could have consequences. It can be a good source, but should be taken lightly.

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: Flatscan
Which article in particular? Cicero had a number of sub-articles spun-off recently, including Writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. The Writings article isn't much more than a list and could use expansion. Many of the individual articles look thin, but In Verrem and Pro Milone look like a reasonable stand-alone articles.

The speeches themselves aren't even there. You have to click through, to a site that's not Wikipedia, to get what you're after.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sonambulo

Originally posted by: Flatscan
Which article in particular? Cicero had a number of sub-articles spun-off recently, including Writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. The Writings article isn't much more than a list and could use expansion. Many of the individual articles look thin, but In Verrem and Pro Milone look like a reasonable stand-alone articles.

The speeches themselves aren't even there. You have to click through, to a site that's not Wikipedia, to get what you're after.

The full text of a speech does not belong in an encyclopedia.

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: mugs
The full text of a speech does not belong in an encyclopedia.

That's kind of my point.

 

[Jeff7]

One of my professors said that he'll frequently check Wikipedia for information. Get a quick overview of the subject first, then check out the references.

But I don't think using it as a citation should be allowed.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: sonambulo

Originally posted by: Flatscan
Which article in particular? Cicero had a number of sub-articles spun-off recently, including Writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. The Writings article isn't much more than a list and could use expansion. Many of the individual articles look thin, but In Verrem and Pro Milone look like a reasonable stand-alone articles.

The speeches themselves aren't even there. You have to click through, to a site that's not Wikipedia, to get what you're after.

The full text of a speech does not belong in an encyclopedia.

mugs makes the point I was going to make. Also, a translation of In Verrem is available at the separate Wikimedia project Wikisource: Against Verres.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: sonambulo

Originally posted by: Flatscan
Which article in particular? Cicero had a number of sub-articles spun-off recently, including Writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. The Writings article isn't much more than a list and could use expansion. Many of the individual articles look thin, but In Verrem and Pro Milone look like a reasonable stand-alone articles.

The speeches themselves aren't even there. You have to click through, to a site that's not Wikipedia, to get what you're after.

The full text of a speech does not belong in an encyclopedia.

mugs makes the point I was going to make. Also, a translation of In Verrem is available at the separate Wikimedia project Wikisource: Against Verres.

I actually looked for it there but didn't find it.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Flatscan
Also, a translation of In Verrem is available at the separate Wikimedia project Wikisource: Against Verres.

I actually looked for it there but didn't find it.

Maybe due to the translated title? There's a link at the end of the Wikipedia article.

 

[Drakkon]

I was part of a couple discussion this last week about Wikipedia and its use in academia. While there are some profs already willing to take it as a source there are others still in the boat of it not being as credible of a source because the authors aren't vetted the same way they are for regular publications. In addition there is a certain disparity between the research done on the internet and what can still only be done at a library. Either way every professor that would allow it said they would only allow it as one of many source and would require a second non-internet based work to be attributed. In other words its fine as a secondary source but never as a primary.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: mugs
Ugh... Princeton should expel that guy for being a moron and embarrassing the university. Really, I think less of Princeton because they accepted that guy.

My thoughts run along these lines. "Don't cite encyclopedias directly" is a simple rule that a good portion of ATOT understands.

Originally posted by: sonambulo
It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

I seem to remember someone (maybe you) posting similar sentiments. What kind of "serious info" is lacking?

For me, it's the fact that someone can just edit it to reflect their personal beliefs and not necessarily fact.

But wouldnt you still have to site sources? They've done a decent job on locking down and exposing "unverified" edits.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: mugs
Ugh... Princeton should expel that guy for being a moron and embarrassing the university. Really, I think less of Princeton because they accepted that guy.

My thoughts run along these lines. "Don't cite encyclopedias directly" is a simple rule that a good portion of ATOT understands.

Originally posted by: sonambulo
It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

I seem to remember someone (maybe you) posting similar sentiments. What kind of "serious info" is lacking?

For me, it's the fact that someone can just edit it to reflect their personal beliefs and not necessarily fact.

But wouldnt you still have to site sources? They've done a decent job on locking down and exposing "unverified" edits.

Nature (the journal) did a comparison between Wikipedia & Britannica. It was a tie. This was a year or so ago. Of course, neither is a valid resource to cite in a college paper. And, their study was related to science articles. Nonetheless, it shows that the "anyone can edit it" problem is *not* a problem. Wikipedia was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone even pointed out that since Wikipedia's articles were longer than Britannica's, while having the same approximate number of errors, that Wikipedia actually has fewer errors as a percentage of the material.

There are certain topics, especially in politics & current events that I wouldn't trust Wikipedia a bit for. Basically anything were there are two opposing sides of extremists. (i.e. global warming.) However, for basic knowledge (or even slightly advanced knowledge) in many subjects, it's just fine.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: mugs
Ugh... Princeton should expel that guy for being a moron and embarrassing the university. Really, I think less of Princeton because they accepted that guy. The problem with wikipedia is not that it's a website, it's not that it can be edited by anyone, and it's not that it's an unreliable source. The problem is that it is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. An encyclopedia essentially is a collection of research papers. I learned in the sixth grade that you should never use an encyclopedia as a source for a research paper. Cite primary and secondary sources. If you can't handle that, you don't belong at a community college let alone Princeton.

/thread

 

[BassBomb]

its valid for work term reports in my school (University of Waterloo engineering)

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I think its fair to say that i use wikipedia extensively for non-serious research projects at college.

I simply go to the cited works in the article and verify them, then use the cited sources as my sources.

This about sums up what most people do, I think.

Yep. I would never cite Wikipedia, but it's not too bad at finding quick sources that you can cite.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: sonambulo
Wikipedia fuckin blows. Jimmy Wales fuckin blows.

It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

QFT.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I didn't answer the poll. I only agree if it's not based on citations involving individual people/organizations/institutions. Only hard facts.

 

[manowar821]

Wikipedia does not blow, in any sense. I agree with CycloWizard though.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: mugs
Ugh... Princeton should expel that guy for being a moron and embarrassing the university. Really, I think less of Princeton because they accepted that guy.

My thoughts run along these lines. "Don't cite encyclopedias directly" is a simple rule that a good portion of ATOT understands.

Originally posted by: sonambulo
It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

I seem to remember someone (maybe you) posting similar sentiments. What kind of "serious info" is lacking?

For me, it's the fact that someone can just edit it to reflect their personal beliefs and not necessarily fact.

But wouldnt you still have to site sources? They've done a decent job on locking down and exposing "unverified" edits.

Nature (the journal) did a comparison between Wikipedia & Britannica. It was a tie. This was a year or so ago. Of course, neither is a valid resource to cite in a college paper. And, their study was related to science articles. Nonetheless, it shows that the "anyone can edit it" problem is *not* a problem. Wikipedia was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone even pointed out that since Wikipedia's articles were longer than Britannica's, while having the same approximate number of errors, that Wikipedia actually has fewer errors as a percentage of the material.

There are certain topics, especially in politics & current events that I wouldn't trust Wikipedia a bit for. Basically anything were there are two opposing sides of extremists. (i.e. global warming.) However, for basic knowledge (or even slightly advanced knowledge) in many subjects, it's just fine.

There have been other more recent studies which have shown wikipedia to be significantly less accurate then Britannica.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: mugs
Ugh... Princeton should expel that guy for being a moron and embarrassing the university. Really, I think less of Princeton because they accepted that guy.

My thoughts run along these lines. "Don't cite encyclopedias directly" is a simple rule that a good portion of ATOT understands.

Originally posted by: sonambulo
It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

I seem to remember someone (maybe you) posting similar sentiments. What kind of "serious info" is lacking?

For me, it's the fact that someone can just edit it to reflect their personal beliefs and not necessarily fact.

But wouldnt you still have to site sources? They've done a decent job on locking down and exposing "unverified" edits.

Nature (the journal) did a comparison between Wikipedia & Britannica. It was a tie. This was a year or so ago. Of course, neither is a valid resource to cite in a college paper. And, their study was related to science articles. Nonetheless, it shows that the "anyone can edit it" problem is *not* a problem. Wikipedia was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone even pointed out that since Wikipedia's articles were longer than Britannica's, while having the same approximate number of errors, that Wikipedia actually has fewer errors as a percentage of the material.

There are certain topics, especially in politics & current events that I wouldn't trust Wikipedia a bit for. Basically anything were there are two opposing sides of extremists. (i.e. global warming.) However, for basic knowledge (or even slightly advanced knowledge) in many subjects, it's just fine.

There have been other more recent studies which have shown wikipedia to be significantly less accurate then Britannica.

Mind citing those studies

 

[ICRS]

Here are some old errors that I have found, and have been fixed. (I wasn't the one who fixed them, I just noticed them and eventually someone else came and fixed them.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...roblem&oldid=116718715 (This error lasted until April 2007) - Error: This actually has nothing to do with GT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...roblem&oldid=121457552 (This error lasted until April 2007 as well) - Error misuse the term odds. The odds are 2/1 not 2/3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde..._Shasta&oldid=20639283 (This error lasted until August 2005) - Big error, the snow line for this mountain is WAY bellow 10,000 feet.

These are only the errors that I have noticed in the past.

 

[frostedflakes]

Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence...?

 

[zinfamous]

No, b/c encyclopedias are not valid citations in academic papers. grade school reports are not considered academic papers.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: sonambulo
Wikipedia fuckin blows. Jimmy Wales fuckin blows.

It's great for pop culture info and a cursory scan about a new subject but it's still junk for serious info.

I think it's a good start, though. the articles often provide links to broader, more valid sources.