It is on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a quality resource? Is it as good or better than the Encyclopedia Britannica? My opinions are that is is a quality resource but it needs a editorial board for quality assurance. I think it covers more stuff better than the Britannica. What are your opinions?
Your opinions please on Wikipedia
- Thread starter rayfieldclement
- Start date
Puppies04
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2011
- 5,909
- 17
- 76
If I were a school teacher I would give an automatic F to any student who cited wiki as a source. Sadly I bet that's not happening.
Wikipedia is only as good at its contributors. However the people who contribute tend to care about what they are contributing to. One of the key things to check is if something on there sounds fishy, check the source. Generally I'd trust Wikipedia.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
I'm an adult who consults Wikipedia for general stuff I'm curious about, not for academic research. Therefore, it's good enough for me.
SphinxnihpS
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,368
- 25
- 91
I would for the same reason I would if the student cited EB or any other compilation of general knowledge, not just because it's wikipedia.
Jeffg010
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2008
- 3,435
- 1
- 0
I love Wikipedia for looking up PC games that I might like. Some one will post a game I go look it up in Wikipedia and get a straight answer. I like the format it uses for example take the game Legend of Grimrock it gives me a quick description right off the bat then Plot, Gameplay, and Reception with a few pictures on the side in a nice neat format. Most bloggers/review sites tend to go over board either hating it or loving it and ramble on way to much about why he hates it or why he loves it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Grimrock
When I read Wikipedia I tend to understand the info much easier then anything else on the net, which is why I think Wikipedia became so popular. The KISS factor went into it keep it simple stupid is very important concept that Wikipedia does very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Grimrock
When I read Wikipedia I tend to understand the info much easier then anything else on the net, which is why I think Wikipedia became so popular. The KISS factor went into it keep it simple stupid is very important concept that Wikipedia does very well.
Last edited:
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,389
- 8,547
- 126
a lot of the a-political factual stuff is going to be fairly accurate. i'd use it for background info on something and then dig into sources if i'm doing anything scholarly. reading about historical battles i'm not going to dig further.
While I use Wikipedia all the time for personal reasons, I wouldn't cite it in an academic paper. Then again, I wouldn't cite the Britannica either.
As a data point, I find that Wikipedia can be useful for the references that it cites. I guess you could say that I use Wikipedia as a meta resource. That is, a resource that points me to other resources.
Uno
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 59,162
- 9,608
- 126
dave_the_nerd
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2011
- 16,987
- 1,617
- 126
Wikipedia is great for casual information-seeking.
For research projects or academic work, it's not a sufficiently reliable source. (The self editing.) However, it's a great way to find sources, since most articles have a list of citations.
Just like the old days, really - step one in any research project was finding a book on your topic, going to the shelf, picking 3-4 neighboring books, going through their bibliographies, and finding those books, journal articles, etc. The internet just makes it faster.
For research projects or academic work, it's not a sufficiently reliable source. (The self editing.) However, it's a great way to find sources, since most articles have a list of citations.
Just like the old days, really - step one in any research project was finding a book on your topic, going to the shelf, picking 3-4 neighboring books, going through their bibliographies, and finding those books, journal articles, etc. The internet just makes it faster.
Wikipedia is great as a starting source. I'd never use it as a primary source, but as a place to find primary sources, it's great.
Too many people have that snap judgement that Wikipedia is wrong 100% of the time and that it's a terrible place that's filled with misinformation. What they don't realize is that a lot of the information on Wikipedia is sources and has links to those sources.
Too many people have that snap judgement that Wikipedia is wrong 100% of the time and that it's a terrible place that's filled with misinformation. What they don't realize is that a lot of the information on Wikipedia is sources and has links to those sources.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
wiki is a fun site for a casual reader. I would not use it as a scientific resource.
What I do not like about wiki is the heavy handed admins. The admins will delete whole topics they do not agree with. Give a couple of people the ability to delete entire ranges of topics is not what wiki is supposed to be about.
If wiki would get rid of some of the heavy handed admins, it would a lot better place.
What I do not like about wiki is the heavy handed admins. The admins will delete whole topics they do not agree with. Give a couple of people the ability to delete entire ranges of topics is not what wiki is supposed to be about.
If wiki would get rid of some of the heavy handed admins, it would a lot better place.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,314
- 4,576
- 136
All sources of knowledge must be circumspect, the question is on reliability. For that Wikipedia is better then Britannica if only because it is more up to date. Both have errors, but Wikipedia corrects those errors much faster once found.
list of erros in Britannica
list of erros in Britannica
Last edited:
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
This.
Just take the two seconds to follow the the article sources yourself. An article with opinion pieces and blogs as citations, garbage. Articles with peer-reviewed sources, wonderful.
Last edited:
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 59,162
- 9,608
- 126
A bit off topic, but do any of you see a use for old Americanna encyclopedias? I have a set from the mid 60s, and year books until 2000. They're boxed up in the basement. I have a real hard time throwing out books, but they're old and out of date. I'm not sure they're of value to anyone. I don't want any money, but I'd like to see them used. Do they have a use?
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
All of these.
Let's say you are in school and you're writing a paper on a subject you're not totally familiar with. You need to build up your base of knowledge. Wikipedia is a great way to get the ball rolling. Use it to help you START your paper.
As you are writing, anytime you mention a fact that would need a citation, use Wikipedia's sources at the bottom of each article and use THOSE in your references list, NOT Wikipedia itself.
Basically, citing Wikipedia as a source of knowledge is like saying food comes from the grocery store, not a farm.
When I was in college, I could access Lexis Nexis through my university's website. It was an EXTREMELY helpful resource because it allowed me to find reliable, citable papers electronically instead of having to page through a bunch of stuff.
Also, it looks much, much more professional to cite, say, an issue's volume and page numbers instead of a web address. I always tried to keep web addresses to a minimum when writing papers. You can use them occasionally but it's better to find an electronic version of an actual published paper, complete with page numbers and whatnot. No difference between that and looking at a printed copy.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter