Having done extensive "behind-the-scenes" work at wikipedia, I can easily say that all of its processes for inclusion/exclusion and citiation are highly vulnerable to people gaming the system to alter the content in favor of their bias/views. No way on the citation. Cite the sources that the WP article uses, not the article.
Indeed.
Lots of academics cite themselves in their own papers. However they cite other published and peer reviewed papers they have written, usually.
Very true. And the main reason for the citations (other than to pump up their citation numbers in the field) is to show that 1) the point I'm making is valid, 2) I know what I'm talking about, and 3) I've empirically supported the validity of my point in the past.
When you're writing any academic paper, you should ALWAYS try to find and cite primary resources. To the best of my knowledge, wikipedia is not a primary resource on anything; it's more akin to an encyclopedia or textbook, which makes it great for finding a starting point, but bad for truly backing anything up.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
You should never cite Wikipedia itself, but the references that the Wikipedia article sites are fair game.
I mean, think about it... you wouldn't site a buddies term paper as a reference for your own... would you? Make your own decisions based off the the research you find.
I mean, think about it... you wouldn't site a buddies term paper as a reference for your own... would you? Make your own decisions based off the the research you find.
From the poll results, it looks like I was a bit optimistic. On the other hand, many replies mentioned vetting and citing the underlying sources directly.Originally posted by: Flatscan
"Don't cite encyclopedias directly" is a simple rule that a good portion of ATOT understands.
That revision was live for 1 minute. Obvious vandalism doesn't last long. Apparently, the edit was done intentionally to get that screenshot.
My thought too. It's a great starting point, but it's no source. Referencing Wikipedia would be like quoting an undergrad paper, you just don't.
I heard some noise about there being some serious flaws in that study, though. Nature got some egg on their faces over that one.
In order for this discussion to progress, we need to draw a distinction between "undergraduate coursework" and "academia". Regardless of what some writer thinks, the only valid sources for undergraduate coursework are "whatever the prof thinks is OK, even if that means the scrawlings on the third floor bathroom", and the only valid sources of academic papers are other academic papers.
Like, in journals. Why would you want to cite Wikipedia anyway? Pretty much all you cite is the current thoughts on the subject of your paper, and that should link to whatever famous papers first postulated the model.
And then you blow them all to hell.
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
At first I thought "Crap, bad choice of words."
And then I thought "No, that's actually a pretty accurate description."
The relevant Wikipedia article only mentions objections from Encyclopædia Britannica. There is a blog linked in the comments section of the OP editorial that has more.
That's an important distinction that I missed completely. Dartmouth Writing Program: What is an academic paper? My guess is that the author was appealing to professors to relax their individual standards.
Nerva
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2005
- 2,784
- 0
- 0
Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles, but why would you want to cite it in a research paper when there are plenty of other sources to use? If anything, you should look at the citations on wiki and go and get those books!
i worked at a place where i had to write descriptive memorandums when we try to sell a company, the vp would actually ask me to look up information on wikipedia and put it in our memo! god what a wacked out place and a wacked out guy. that always pissed me off.
for academic papers, always cite books and articles!
i worked at a place where i had to write descriptive memorandums when we try to sell a company, the vp would actually ask me to look up information on wikipedia and put it in our memo! god what a wacked out place and a wacked out guy. that always pissed me off.
for academic papers, always cite books and articles!
what's gayer is conservapedia. look it up.. the site owner is a dumbfuck and should die in a chemical fire.
Man, they have to make, "Isn't a sheltered moron" a criterion for admission. That a student at a top university would call for this screams of having zero exposure to the world.
What's that? People make things up? There's no incentive to keep accurate?
What's that? People make things up? There's no incentive to keep accurate?
Citations are supposed to give credit to where the information came from. If the information came from wikipedia then that is what should be listed. The real problem isn't that wikipedia should or should not be used citations is the assine requirements to cite 15 works and every 3 words. This is really only a problem in course work and not real papers. When writing a real paper to be published the audence is expected to know the background of the topic and therefor there is no need to cite wikipedia because anything listed on wikipedia the reader should already know.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter