Wikipedia Accuracy

[MBuzzy]

Wikipedia is a great place to start a research paper...it should give one clues for further research. But as a source? Ugh.

Agreed - in any academic paper, wikipedia as a source basically guarantees that no one will ever read it. BUT....by the same token, an ENCYCLOPEDIA as a source in an academic paper will do the same thing. Research papers for classes and schools, etc...no problem. A true academic publication? No way.

 

[Fiendlover]

I believe that a big part of the reason that high school teachers don't allow it is that using wikipedia does not add value in your education. One of the most important things that I learned in High school (before the internet is what it is) is HOW TO FIND THINGS. It is pretty easy now, but if you were allowed to use that as your only source, you would never know how to go look in books, peer reviewed journals, articles, etc. You have to think that the teacher's job is the educate you...not just on the facts, but how to find them. Four years of education in an engineering program and I remember or have used maybe 10% of the FACTS....but the simple process of how to learn, how to think, and how to FIND the answer is what I really got out of the experience.

Think of it this way....how accuracte is a textbook really? It is written by one organization, with a staff of experts. Those experts don't change from year to year. If they aren't up to snuff in their researching, how accurate is the book? There are no real checks and balances from the industry or the REAL experts...not just the person who wrote the book (I refer PRIMARILY to high school books...which are of a MUCH different nature than College and graduate books, which are most often WRITTEN by the experts). I have found MANY MANY errors in text books. The difference is....I can't fix it there. I can't even provide the necessary feedback - and if I did...who would care.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that if you DO find an error, it is your right to go and fix it. Providing a constant, ever evolving system of checks and balances. Especially with a subject like history, which is ALWAYS changing and evolving. History is not necessarily written in stone. It changes more often than you'd think.

Lastly....what year was your textbook written in? When I went to school, they were all AT LEAST 5 years old. The Average wikipedia entry CAN'T be more than 5 years old.

Good points. My sophmore english teacher allowed us to use any other information on the net excluding wiki.

All my books this year are all new and updated. That was the big thing this year especially about keeping it in pristine condition. They're really cracking down on that this year.

 

[MBuzzy]

Good points. My sophmore english teacher allowed us to use any other information on the net excluding wiki.

All my books this year are all new and updated. That was the big thing this year especially about keeping it in pristine condition. They're really cracking down on that this year.

Definately good to hear! When I was in school, even when we got new books, they were old!!

That doesn't mean that you can't use wiki as a springboard - there is a lot of information there, with a lot of links. One of the best parts about it is that it gives you the necessary information (terminology, background, etc) to START your search. Many times just not knowing the subject well can be a big roadblock in your research.

 

[jks9199]

Definately good to hear! When I was in school, even when we got new books, they were old!!

That doesn't mean that you can't use wiki as a springboard - there is a lot of information there, with a lot of links. One of the best parts about it is that it gives you the necessary information (terminology, background, etc) to START your search. Many times just not knowing the subject well can be a big roadblock in your research.

That's the best way to use Wikipedia and many, many other websites... as a pointer to get started and find out where to start. You CAN use some of the sources cited in a Wiki post, if you verify what they say. And it'll generally get you the right base info like terminology... But, like all sources, you really have to read it critically and assess the material for validity.

 

[Steel Tiger]

That's the best way to use Wikipedia and many, many other websites... as a pointer to get started and find out where to start. You CAN use some of the sources cited in a Wiki post, if you verify what they say. And it'll generally get you the right base info like terminology... But, like all sources, you really have to read it critically and assess the material for validity.

Yeah, you have to look deeply into the articles. Attached to many of them are original source documents too. Its always worth going to the bottom of the page and checking the footnotes and links.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Many Wikipedia articles may be highly accurate. For me, as a teacher-librarian in middle school, accuracy is part of the story. Wikipedia articles are often coloured positively or negatively by the enthusiasm of the author. That language gets regurgitated in the research-writing process. I start students off with conventional online encyclopedias to which we have paid subscriptions. Similarly, I can give them passwords for home use.

Once they've read the 'facts,' if you will, with current data, graphics, etc, then they are encouraged to broaden their exploration. Starting with a properly vetted source gives them useful language (ie keywords) to be able to explore other sources. My issue with Wikipedia is that it's part of the free web, and there is more reliable information out there if you're willing to pay for it and look for it.

That said, I would put Wikipedia ahead of 'googling,' which can lead inexperienced researchers into a world where information is very carefully massaged and whose accuracy goes unchallenged. Wikipedia has the edge over a lot online material in that people are riding shotgun over content and challenging it.

Wikipedia is a real kick for pop culture content. As long as readers understand that what they are getting is essentially a more detailed version of what can be found in People magazine or A&E's Biography.

A lot of teachers, especially librarians, dislike Wikipedia -- I don't. There's worse online. I look at it quite often.