• 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.

Wikipedia a Valid Source

Regs

Regs

Lifer
This is a small rant about how educational institutions and their gripes on Wikipedia being a valid source to cite. A lot of my older instructors discuss the creditability and reputably of Wiki for reporting so I will turn to one of Wikipedia's web pages to help prove my point.

First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Look for the citations at the bottom:

"Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. "

Ahhh screw that liberal teaching law school.


" Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)"

Ah, common law means nothing.


""Bill of Rights". National Archives. Archived from the original on April 4, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2013."

Ah, it was Retrieved well after the Bill of Rights were published. Can't be accurate.


Who the hell are these teachers who think Wiki isn't a valid source? Just because it was not written by their favorite bull shit politician or endorsed by their political party , special interest, or money grubbing publisher does not mean it is reputable!
 
Nintendesert said:
DERP.


How about you use the sources cited instead of Wiki then?
Click to expand...

^^^This. No encyclopedia is a valid source because it isn't original research. Wikipedia's accuracy, and completeness is competitive with other knowledge compilations, but original research is required for papers.
 
it's basically an encyclopedia.

encyclopedias are generally frowned upon as sources after the grammar/high school level... and there is the issue that you could -- if you wanted -- edit a wiki page to say whatever you want it to and cite as "retrieved on..." before your update gets edited out.

if you want to be lazy and get around it, just look to the citations on the wikipedia article itself and cite them where appropriate.
 
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because anybody can edit it. It's not peer reviewed. However, it is a great resource to get you started on research. Especially if you go through the material being cited at the bottom of the article.

When I was in university, Wikipedia was just starting to gain traction. Most of my professors hated it. However, I did have one forward thinking guy who gave us an assignment editing it. Which I think is a fantastic job for university students, since it makes Wiki more reliable for the general public to learn.
 
wikipedia is far more accurate than any other encyclopedia because anyone can contribute to it... there isnt just one guy who thinks he knows everything and gets to say his encyclopedia is the final word.
 
I've never understood why students bitch about not being able to use Wikipedia as a source. Scroll to the bottom of the page and wham: treasure trove of sources.

I guess scrolling is too hard though.
 
Wikipedia is NOT a valid source. It is NOT your professors job to sift through wikipedia to verify that all the sources are accurate. That is YOUR job.

You should be looking up the sources in wikipedia and used THEM for your research.
 
If your prof won't take wiki as a source just PM me your questions. I will respond and you can cite my PM as a source. For a mere US$10 I will be sure to speak ex-cathedra so there will be no questioning of the reliability of the info containerized therein.
 
bignateyk said:
Wikipedia is NOT a valid source. It is NOT your professors job to sift through wikipedia to verify that all the sources are accurate. That is YOUR job.

You should be looking up the sources in wikipedia and used THEM for your research.
Click to expand...

who's to say the original sources are accurate and have been validated?
 
Too many teachers and professors are butthurt over wiki because "anybody can edit it", betraying quickly that they don't understand much of it is cited and verifiable. At the end of the day pretty much all knowledge is something somebody else says, but wiki is one of the best sites on the Internet. It is my automatic go-to on pretty much any new subject. If I need more info I drill down after. In my experience it is exceptionally reliable.
 
Nintendesert said:
DERP.


How about you use the sources cited instead of Wiki then?
Click to expand...

This.

Wikipedia is a great resource for finding the real source of information.

OP--would you consider citing an encyclopedia entry as a credible source? Of course you wouldn't, so I really don't get the complaint.
 
Doppel said:
Too many teachers and professors are butthurt over wiki because "anybody can edit it", betraying quickly that they don't understand much of it is cited and verifiable. At the end of the day pretty much all knowledge is something somebody else says, but wiki is one of the best sites on the Internet. It is my automatic go-to on pretty much any new subject. If I need more info I drill down after. In my experience it is exceptionally reliable.
Click to expand...

No, it's because encyclopedias are not acceptable citations.

Did you guys stop going to school around the 3rd grade or something?

:hmm:
 
Doppel said:
Too many teachers and professors are butthurt over wiki because "anybody can edit it", betraying quickly that they don't understand much of it is cited and verifiable. At the end of the day pretty much all knowledge is something somebody else says, but wiki is one of the best sites on the Internet. It is my automatic go-to on pretty much any new subject. If I need more info I drill down after. In my experience it is exceptionally reliable.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's cited. It isn't the job of the professor to sift through and verify that the information cited is actually in the sources.

From the wikipedia entry on Doppel:

Doppel has sex with farm animals [1]

[1] "Cornell Science News: Livestock Production". News.cornell.edu. 1997-08-07. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
Click to expand...
If it's from wiki and its cited, it must be true!

I agree that wiki is a great site, and contains a treasure trove of good information, but that doesn't make it a valid citation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top