-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Wiki as accurate as britannica!(for scientific topics)
- Thread starter r6ashih
- Start date
DainBramaged
Lifer
It will never be accepted as long as it is editable.
Two of my professors accepted it.. One explicity stated not to use it..
So, imo.. some will.. some won't.
But, I'd say that more people that are willing to go to the trouble of attempting to edit a Wiki article are usually right than wrong.. so the more editable it is, the better it gets.
So, imo.. some will.. some won't.
But, I'd say that more people that are willing to go to the trouble of attempting to edit a Wiki article are usually right than wrong.. so the more editable it is, the better it gets.
junkerman123
Golden Member
Any professor that actually cares says no way at my school.
MartyMcFly3
Lifer
I've used it in college papers before. Professor didn't seem to care. Didn't say anything at least.
smack Down
Diamond Member
I'm sure anything in wiki can be found in another source on the internet.
iamaelephant
Diamond Member
Why do you need Wiki so desperately? Most the the info that you'll need is readily available in text books or other internet sources anyway. I know if I was a professor I wouldn't allow it.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
Have you ever actually written an upper level college paper? Sure, the information IS out there, but Wikipedia often puts much of it in a single location.
What a dumbass.
Babbles
Diamond Member
I think it is absolutely awful to use Wikipedia as a source for academic purposes. It is great for fun background information, and I use it all of the time myself. However it should not, at least in it's present incarnation, ever be used as something to cite.
For example, my girlfriend is finishing up her Ph.D. and has been teaching classes off and on for many years now. Her and her cohorts read Wikipedia to make sure their students are not copying/pasting information from Wikipedia. Apparently another instructor found a paper that was just a Wikipedia articled that was copied word for word - links included! And, this is a major, major university but I don't want to start drama in another direction so I would rather not mention the name but it is a ~40,000 student university with some serious funding, so this stuff isn't just happening and Bubba's Community College (not that there is anything wrong with Bubba and his community college).
Anyhow, she has told me that she has found quite a bit of information that while not necessarily wrong is not exactly correct either. And, these errors are things that only people with an extensive background knowledge will found - meaning that if you were to use those articles you would be wrong and never know it. I have seen the same thing when I looked up things that I do at work on Wikipedia. The way it is written may be right any many ways, but it is not really accurate either. However lay people would never know this.
Again, Wikipedia is a useful tool and I enjoy using it, but it should never enter the academic field as a serious source of information.
For example, my girlfriend is finishing up her Ph.D. and has been teaching classes off and on for many years now. Her and her cohorts read Wikipedia to make sure their students are not copying/pasting information from Wikipedia. Apparently another instructor found a paper that was just a Wikipedia articled that was copied word for word - links included! And, this is a major, major university but I don't want to start drama in another direction so I would rather not mention the name but it is a ~40,000 student university with some serious funding, so this stuff isn't just happening and Bubba's Community College (not that there is anything wrong with Bubba and his community college).
Anyhow, she has told me that she has found quite a bit of information that while not necessarily wrong is not exactly correct either. And, these errors are things that only people with an extensive background knowledge will found - meaning that if you were to use those articles you would be wrong and never know it. I have seen the same thing when I looked up things that I do at work on Wikipedia. The way it is written may be right any many ways, but it is not really accurate either. However lay people would never know this.
Again, Wikipedia is a useful tool and I enjoy using it, but it should never enter the academic field as a serious source of information.
mugs
Lifer
You should never use ANY type of encyclopedia as a source in a reasearch paper, whether it be Wikipedia or Britannica. However if the wiki article cites its sources, you could use those sources. If it doesn't cite its sources it's about as useful as what some homeless guy on the street told you.
A research paper should use primary or secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. An encyclopedia is basically a book full of research papers! I don't know of any educator who'd let anyone above 7th grade use an encyclopedia article in a research paper.
http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html
A research paper should use primary or secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. An encyclopedia is basically a book full of research papers! I don't know of any educator who'd let anyone above 7th grade use an encyclopedia article in a research paper.
http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html
Babbles
Diamond Member
Britannica Rebuttal
It is 20 pages, but I think very worthwhile if you genuinely care about the study in question.
It is 20 pages, but I think very worthwhile if you genuinely care about the study in question.
Most of it is now very thoroughly maintained. Articles that are frequently vandalized often get locked. The chances of significant bias slipping into important articles (Cletusville, Alabama is not an important article) is minimal, and where it is heavily disputed a disclaimer is given.
Many professors that you're writing these upper level college papers for will not allow you to cite Wikipedia, and frankly when I'm paying thousands of dollar to attend college I'd rather not flunk or get a lower grade because some douchebag edited the wrong information into Wiki before I referenced the article.
There are a lot of pages in wiki that are solid and probably suited to academic purposes. But there are many that aren't as well.
Because wiki has a policy that you should have "no original work" it probably is best to not allow them, because any useful resource on wiki will be based on listed sources that you can cite instead.
Because wiki has a policy that you should have "no original work" it probably is best to not allow them, because any useful resource on wiki will be based on listed sources that you can cite instead.
bigdog1218
Golden Member
Obviously you've never written an upper level college paper, you just think you have. Wikipedia is fine for the everyday person who just wants to look something up, but using it as a source in any paper is a joke. And it comes down to exactly what you said, and why Wikipedia is popular. People would rather get half-a$$ wrong information than do a little work and get the facts.
DurocShark
Lifer
Wiki is good for getting more links and references. Don't use it for your sole source.
MrDingleDangle
Lifer
when was the last time you were able to cite any encyclopedia for a report?? I think the last time any of my professors allowed that was 8th grade
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
