Wikipedia's credibility

[Zanix]

Think this would be a valid source in general?

then how about including it in a report/essay for school.




maybe it's more credible than the major hard cover brands based simply on mass of minds and constant updating.


I don't think I'd quote it in a report. Yprofs.MV

 

[Rallispec]

for general information, maybe. Don't think i'd cite them as a source to prove an argument or something though, unless the auther backed up thier article with other documentation. In general though, you have no idea of knowing if the stuff on thier is true or not - so its probably not as good as other sources.

 

[RaDragon]

Wikipedia has some entries that match/are a duplicate of the entries in the Subscription version of Britannica (online encyclopedia). At the same time, I think it holds more ground if you have Britannica quoted in your sources, rather than Wikipedia. Just my $0.02 🙂

 

[Kibbo]

Since there is always the off chance that any given entry was written by a moron or a crank, I'd say no.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Since there is always the off chance that any given entry was written by a moron or a crank, I'd say no.

true, as i've come across such an entry more than once.

 

[Babbles]

So far I think Wikipedia has done a good job of filtering out bad information from the good. It may be worthwhile to use so you learn about a topic, however I would not cite Wikipedia itself but rather look for citations within the Wikipedia entries. Hopefully whomever wrote up the entry on what you are researching has included links to primary sources which you can cite.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia would be a secondary source and you may be better off citing a primary source, which itself should be cited in the Wikipedia entry.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: Babbles
So far I think Wikipedia has done a good job of filtering out bad information from the good. It may be worthwhile to use so you learn about a topic, however I would not cite Wikipedia itself but rather look for citations within the Wikipedia entries. Hopefully whomever wrote up the entry on what you are researching has included links to primary sources which you can cite.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia would be a secondary source and you may be better off citing a primary source, which itself should be cited in the Wikipedia entry.

Do you think it's credibility will increase as it's popularity increases?

 

[abaez]

Never. Use it as a third or fourth source to maybe verify info but that's about it.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Zanix
Do you think it's credibility will increase as it's popularity increases?

I think it will become more credible and used as a good tool to research a topic, however again wikipedia is a secondary (or even tertiary) research source. Therefore you need to corroborate what you find in Wikipedia with primary sources.
For instance I looked up Toxicology in Wikipedia. You may then be able to read the entry to better understand the topic, however luckily this entry has other sources for you to check out in the form of a book and other websites. Granted one of those sources appears to be a textbook and I wouldn't use it as a primary source; however, at least now you have other sources you can use to gather information.

I think Wikipedia will become a very important tool but I doubt it will ever be something to cite in of itself.