Four out of five academic scholars agree that Wikipedia is a reliable source (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

Define line of accuracy

WIKIPEDIA, the people's encyclopedia, is a multilingual, million-entry fount of knowledge from Britney to Byzantium that has become the elitists' favourite whipping boy.

Unreliable, they say. Easily tampered with. Incoherent. Out of control. A demolition derby of ideologies, driven by reckless amateurs and cybergeeks with too much time on their hands.

And yet, when people take the time to read the Wikipedia entries on subjects in which they have some experience or expertise, they are often pleasantly surprised. I have found Wikipedia to be a tremendous resource, whether I need a quick primer on the history of the Caliphate, or the name of that dog that used to star in Frasier.

Wikipedia's unpaid contributors are rapidly compiling one of the best movie databases ever, with extensive plot and character summaries of all major films, and tremendously useful linked lists of such subjects as "Best Picture Winners".

To try a more objective test than my own need to find, say, Martin Scorsese's birth date, five Colorado scholars were asked to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution.

... On the much-debated topic of global warming, Scott Denning, Colorado State University's Monfort professor of atmospheric science, called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen."

Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy".

Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia had better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors," he says.

William Wei, a University of Colorado history professor, was the most negative voice in the bunch, calling the basic entry on China "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent".

Wei says the Wikipedia entry mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China, for example, and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations.

"One of its problems is relying on amateurs to contribute," says Wei, who admits he brings a rigorous perspective to the material as a specialist in Chinese republic history. "I applaud a democratising spirit but quite frankly it can lead to, for want of a better word, mediocrity."

Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College in Colorado Springs and frequent writer on Bill Clinton, said the entry on Clinton was thorough, unbiased and balanced Clinton's accomplishments and scandals. Loevy says the bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

"It would have been a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge on Clinton," he says.

As with the other professors, he cautions his students to treat Wikipedia like any other book in the library - any fact cited there should be double-checked somewhere else.

If any world subject is ripe for tampering or acrimony, it would seem to be Islam.

Yet retired University of Colorado-Boulder religious studies professor Frederick Denny, a 40-year specialist in Islam, was "quite impressed" with Wikipedia's 28-page entry.

"It looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three," Denny says.

He described the writing as clinical and straightforward but not boring. Where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well.

"I have a feeling there are very responsible people out there who are making sure this doesn't become a free-for-all," Denny says.

On the Wikipedia topic of evolution, Jeffrey Mitton, University of Colorado biology professor, declared the entry "good", even if "stylistic infelicities abound". A student reading through the main entry and the primary links to supporting concepts would get a fine introduction, Mitton says.

- THE DENVER POST

so there you have it. just like 9 out of 10 nutritionists recommend weetbix.

the next time your lecturer won't let you cite wiki, point them to this article.

 

[Stott Despoja]

so there you have it. just like 9 out of 10 nutritionists recommend weetbix.

the next time your lecturer won't let you cite wiki, point them to this article.

The article merely points out that the Wikipedia is reasonably reliable (much like an encyclopedia), not that it's an appropriate secondary source for a tertiary level assessment task.

 

[Season]

I actually had a friend who took some information for a science report of wiki at uni, and it was wrong.

Its like the dictionary on the computer, it starts out all healthy, but random people "add" words to the dictionary so it becomes corrupted.

Its a great place to start, but you really do need to go deeper then wikipedia

 

[DeathB4Life]

so there you have it. just like 9 out of 10 nutritionists recommend weetbix.

the next time your lecturer won't let you cite wiki, point them to this article.

4/5 =/= 9/10

therefore weetbix > wikipedia

 

[Tulipa]

I actually had a friend who took some information for a science report of wiki at uni, and it was wrong.

Its like the dictionary on the computer, it starts out all healthy, but random people "add" words to the dictionary so it becomes corrupted.

Its a great place to start, but you really do need to go deeper then wikipedia

Agreed.

My lecturers at uni tell us to use Wikipedia as a starting point but to never cite it as a valid source.

 

[Sparcod]

Like Tulipa said- I don't see anything wrong (to get a grasp of the basics of a topic) with using wikipedia- just not to cite it as a valid source.

I know that it's edit-able but the stuff that's on there is relatively similar (but easier to understand) compared to the sources/journals we should be using.

 

[Conspirocy]

haha i have a lecture with good ole wiki cited as a reference lol

 

[lala2]

I use Wikipedia for my own private study plus corroboration with lecture notes and the textbook. I would never use it on its own without double checking, but it saves me a heap of time flicking through a textbook and often clarifies--very well--the concept I'm looking up, because it's amateur and so tends to use less formal language in its explanation which is essential for comprehension.

It's also a great source for diagrams--Google turns up with tons of relevant images but it's a pain to have to sift through them, and usually Wikipedia has some amazingly succinct and complete diagram that illustrates a point or a whole concept--chapter, even--quite well.

 

[S1M0]

I have too much of a reliance on wikipedia.

In the future, i need to find other sources of information.

 

[Lucid Scintilla]

???

I pretty much use Wikipedia for general information (I rarely ever get other information, I guess) and information about albums.

Tulipa, do lecturers suggest you to use the links at the bottom/references/footnotes of the wiki article?

 

[Enteebee]

Wikipedia is awesome because it hyperlinks to peer reviewed academic articles, therefore > encyclopedias.

 

[watatank]

@lucid: yeah you can cite the sites at the bottom (provided they are cite-worthy sources), just not the wiki article itself.

 

[Tulipa]

Sort of. Not like this one girl who used the wiki article and then cited using a random source at the bottom.

They basically say use it to get a general understanding but to do extensive research outside of it and most of my lecturers prefer books to websites which does make sense.