Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Wikipedia as a source.
Wikipedia as a source.
2007-10-31, 2:12 PM #1
I've been taught from teachers from high school to professor from college that it is most unwise to use Wikipedia as a source in a theis-driven and research papers. I always assumed that in other schools they follow the same idea that its a no-no when it comes sourcing Wikipedia. I mean, it makes sense; the greatest feature of Wikipedia, the ability for anyone to edit the page, is the reason why it can't be quoted in a paper that require experts in field. So, do you have teachers/professors that actually allow using Wikipedia as source material? Me, never, and I guess it also depends on the field of study.

eh.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2007-10-31, 2:14 PM #2
I've always been told never to use it as a source. However, I have had several teachers say that it's a great starting point for research, either to get ideas for a topic or for getting possible sources.
2007-10-31, 2:16 PM #3
Well, if the Wikipedia article has reputable sources, maybe you could just list those sources instead.

That's what I did once upon a time.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2007-10-31, 2:19 PM #4
Yeah, I just use it to start my researching.

But my highschool hates wikipedia apparently so anytime anyone sees me looking at it (Friends included, not just teachers) they jump all over my *** because OBVIOUSLY it's all lies and I can't trust a word of it.
I had a blog. It sucked.
2007-10-31, 2:21 PM #5
First and foremost, Wikipedia is a valid source for information. The accuracy of ANY source has to be cemented by information from other sources. The fact that wikipedia can be constantly modified is a benefit, not its curse. People who think that simply using wikipedia in a paper makes it illegitimate just don't understand the process. There are several features to wikipedia that, when a person with two brains uses it, can confirm the legitimacy, accuracy, and reliability of a statement.

I have a paper somewhere that I wrote to a teacher with similar ignorances about Wikipedia, and I absolutely swayed her. If I can find it, I'll post it.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-31, 2:24 PM #6
Originally posted by Zecks:
I've always been told never to use it as a source. However, I have had several teachers say that it's a great starting point for research, either to get ideas for a topic or for getting possible sources.


Yep. I've used Wikipedia to find more legitimate sources and to get a general overview of topics I don't know that much about.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2007-10-31, 2:54 PM #7
Originally posted by Zecks:
I've always been told never to use it as a source. However, I have had several teachers say that it's a great starting point for research, either to get ideas for a topic or for getting possible sources.


This for one teacher (note however that I only take at most one class per quarter that requires this type of research)

He doesn't mind it, just as long as your facts are straight.

For the most part I get a general idea off of Wikipedia, then I go to LexisNexis to continue my research.
[01:52] <~Nikumubeki> Because it's MBEGGAR BEGS LIKE A BEGONI.
2007-10-31, 3:02 PM #8
For stuff that is FACT like mathematics and what have you it's fine. It's just a handy resource. For anything involving interpretation and conjecture it's pretty much only useful as a starting point.
2007-10-31, 3:17 PM #9
Never source it, But we are encouraged to look it over when researching something. Just to try to find extra sources for more reputable stuff.
2007-10-31, 3:17 PM #10
Wikipedia has sources listed at the bottom of page, this makes it a hell of a lot more reliable than the average source.

We were told that Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable but just like any other source you can't use it to back up everything. You need to have a variety of sources otherwise you're basically guaranteeing that what you're saying is complete rubbish.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2007-10-31, 3:41 PM #11
Originally posted by JediKirby:
First and foremost, Wikipedia is a valid source for information. The accuracy of ANY source has to be cemented by information from other sources. The fact that wikipedia can be constantly modified is a benefit, not its curse. People who think that simply using wikipedia in a paper makes it illegitimate just don't understand the process. There are several features to wikipedia that, when a person with two brains uses it, can confirm the legitimacy, accuracy, and reliability of a statement.

I have a paper somewhere that I wrote to a teacher with similar ignorances about Wikipedia, and I absolutely swayed her. If I can find it, I'll post it.


No encyclopedia should be used as a resource, no matter how reliable. You could use it to get an idea of what you are write about, but ultimately you need to write the report from actual sources, not condense a report someone else has done. Also, if you're are trying to find sources for facts, you need to be able quote the original source or the actual expert.


I mean, yeah wikipedia is awesome, but it's just shouldn't be used for sources as should any encyclopedia.
2007-10-31, 3:42 PM #12
Not all Wikipedia articles are well-sourced, but the ones that are should be considered perfectly valid as far as facts are concerned. And the shaky ones are marked as having unsupported information.
2007-10-31, 4:12 PM #13
Most fields do allow Encyclopedia referencing, but the reasons why Encyclopedia referencing isn't ok in the fields you're talking about is why Wikipedia is ok in the others.

And yeah, a good report doesn't have to follow the "no wikipedia" rule. I'd even go so far as to argue that (while a good report doesn't require it,) excluding the use of wikipedia is inherently lowering the quality of a paper or essay.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-31, 4:15 PM #14
Originally posted by JediKirby:
I'd even go so far as to argue that (while a good report doesn't require it,) excluding the use of wikipedia is inherently lowering the quality of a paper or essay.


I'm not following. Explain?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2007-10-31, 4:40 PM #15
Some types of writing, such as opinion essays and argumentative papers should not be discriminatory in their findings. Other more technical pieces should only discriminate based on legitimacy, which is the point of this argument itself. If a certain page on wikipedia has poor legitimacy, of course you wouldn't use it. Excluding wikipedia as a rule, however, is detrimental to even a technical essay, and almost faulty for an argumentative one.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-31, 4:55 PM #16
I've had profs that allow it, but I never use it myself.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2007-10-31, 6:46 PM #17
Wikipedia may be a valid source of information, particularly for entertainment purposes, but to me it seems lazy to use it for anything more than a starting point to finding legitimate sources for scholastic works. I know when I went to school encyclopedias were not a valid source for papers so I don't see why Wikipedia should be.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2007-10-31, 7:40 PM #18
I don't think my Uni disallows Wiki as a source, but rather strongly discourages students from using it to base references from. It's a good starting point, they tell us, but referencing it makes our papers look weaker than those researched from other sources (such as published journals and books).
2007-10-31, 8:42 PM #19
Originally posted by Martyn:
For stuff that is FACT like mathematics and what have you it's fine. It's just a handy resource.


Actually, for stuff like mathematics and computer science, it's probably one of the best sources available.
I'm just a little boy.
2007-10-31, 8:44 PM #20
There's arguments that peer review has failed a number of fields of study (Besides medical and science) and thus relying solely on published materials can actually hurt your own research. In the end, I just think it's a bad idea to rule it out or rely on it, just like any other source.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-10-31, 9:13 PM #21
I usually use Wikipedia to find info, and then track down the source they used, and cite that.
My Parkour blog
My Twitter. Follow me!
2007-10-31, 9:59 PM #22
Oh, I thought the poll asked our opinion on it as a source. Mis-read.

Anyways, most of my teachers don't allow for me to use any websites of any sort and I usually have to write all my citation for books in the MLA format.

They do encourage wikipedia however.
Back again
2007-10-31, 10:25 PM #23
Originally posted by Detty:
We were told that Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable but just like any other source you can't use it to back up everything. You need to have a variety of sources otherwise you're basically guaranteeing that what you're saying is complete rubbish.

This.

The instability issue is moot because you can view page history, get a persistent link to a page, or just use Stablepedia.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-10-31, 11:24 PM #24
All of my report material comes from Encyclopedia Dramatica.
error; function{getsig} returns 'null'
2007-11-01, 1:23 AM #25
My entire masters degree was thanks to what I could learn from wikipedia the night before the exam.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2007-11-01, 1:42 AM #26
wikipedia has never been allowed by my professors, however I've always been told that the links they site are often great sources, so I can look there for source material.

Now, that doesn't mean that I haven't used it before, but not as much for research papers.
Fincham: Where are you going?
Me: I have no idea
Fincham: I meant where are you sitting. This wasn't an existential question.
2007-11-01, 6:32 AM #27
Yes, it's allowed. That's because all my history credits are out of the way, and the only real papers I write deal with english or philosophy, both being classes held by really relaxed professors.
2007-11-02, 1:45 AM #28
Well, I'm not in school anymore, so I couldn't really say, but we were encouraged to cite primary sources an not encyclopedias.
Sorry for the lousy German
2007-11-02, 7:17 AM #29
They in a sense allow it. They let students use it as a gateway to referenced information within it.
twitter | flickr | last.fm | facebook |
2007-11-02, 8:25 AM #30
Originally posted by Zloc_Vergo:
Yeah, I just use it to start my researching.

But my highschool hates wikipedia apparently so anytime anyone sees me looking at it (Friends included, not just teachers) they jump all over my *** because OBVIOUSLY it's all lies and I can't trust a word of it.


Ah that's a little extreme on their behalf. Wikipedia is a good starting point, and if the claims on Wiki articles aren't backed up by sources, then don't take them serious or go look for those claims from reliable sources.

I can see why Wikipedia itself wouldn't be allowed (And in my experience it hasn't been) and that's the simply fact that anyone can edit articles and not all claims on the articles are always backed up.

So Wikipedia is good, but you have more work to do than use a Wikipedia article if you're trying to do any academic work.
2007-11-02, 9:33 AM #31
I use Wikipedia to look for facts, but I only use ones that are specifically cited/referenced at the bottom of the page. Then I just cite that source
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"

↑ Up to the top!