To wiki or not to wiki

[MONODA]

Hi I really like wikipedia and think that it is a great resource. but at my school they do not let us use it as a reference of any kind. I understand that anyone can come in and edit any article, but that edit is recorded and then reviewed. if it is gibberish or it is not cited, it is removed and the person who wrote it is notified, after the third warning they become banned. I seriously think that wikipedia should be considered as a legitimate source, what do you guys think???

[montres]

Well, that's a very big issue. I think the reason wikipedia shouldn't be cited directly for academic purposes is just that :anybody can edit it. Not writing gibberish isn't enough. For an encyclopedia to be considered trully reliable, it has to be written by experts in each field.
However, wikipedia does have references which you could use to get to some reliable sources which then you can cite in your work for school.

[uberlube]

What defines an expert though. I'm sure that the people that choose to edit info in wiki are doing it because they have intimate knowledge on these subjects. Plus if they were to just write gibberish, im sure it would be quickly edited again soon thereafter with proper info. Just my opinion though.

[steeleyuk]

You should tell your school that anybody can setup a website and put gibberish in there...

Just because a website has been created does not guarantee that the information contained there is any more reliable than that found at Wikipedia.

You might also want to mention to your school that information is regularly taken from Wikipedia and republished on other sites (eg. answers.com), so information can come from anywhere whether Wikipedia is listed as a reference or not.

[JT9161]

Personally I love Wikipedia and use it for school recently I had to do 2 powerpoint presentations 1 on Helium and the other on Einstein, Wiki. has entries for both and gave me more information then I even needed

[AtlantaBob]

Having spent 9 years at the University level (almost done with my PhD, with 2 master's degrees, and a bachelor's along the way), I feel qualified to comment on this one. (No, I'm not full of myself, I just figure that I should say that I have some legitimate qualifications.)

First, Wikipedia is a fantastic resource. I check it all the time, whether I'm trying to figure out whether a three-of-a-kind beats a straight, or when I'm trying to figure out an arcane present-value of money function.

That being said, I think we should realize what the point of term papers is about. It's not for students to simply tell the professor what they know about the subject--believe me, the professor knows far more about it than the student--but to teach the student how to synthesize information. The great (and horrible) part about Wikipedia is that the information has already been synthesized for these students. For the most part, the objection against Wikipedia is, essentially, the same as the objection against citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with a few extra complaints thrown in.

Some--a few, and trust me, I've taught at top-10 schools--students learned to synthesize information well before they made it to college. But every student (and graduate student, and professor) needs continual practice to do so at a high level. Using Wikipedia as a shortcut erodes those skills. That's not to say that we should never use those shortcuts--we use them all the time, whether it is reading a meta-review of the literature, or using an escalator. But the point of a college education is to hone and sharpen these skills....

So a bright student who uses Wikipedia misses out on some mental challenge--they can make it up by playing Sodoku, right? While this might actually be the case, the majority of college students (again, trust me on this, excepting members of this forum) aren't actually all that bright. While the really bright students may miss out on a little mental exercise, the intellectually obese (i.e. stupid) students who cite Wikipedia are missing on on their only chance for intellectual physical fitness. They're missing out on their only chance to truly learn how to synthesize information (and, in the case of Wikipedia and other web sites, to learn how to carefully evaluate information that they find on the web.)

That's why I'm against allowing the citation of Wikipedia in papers and class assignments. If this argument doesn't make too much sense to you, consider that I made it after a few glasses of wine (all scholars are closet alcoholics).

[Superkoop]

I think Atlanta said it the best, in explaining why you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a cited source.
But I know that in high school, when a teacher would tell you not to cite Wikipedia, and you would ask why not, the teacher would tell you that it's because the info isn't reliable. And I think that is totally wrong, because the info on Wikipedia is more reliable than the information you will get from most teachers. Most, if not all, teachers are quite biased in their teaching, and so end up teaching you just their opinions.
I know this because many times one teacher will say one thing, but another teacher will say something a little different. Usually the discrepancies aren't that large, but they are still large enough to mess you up on a test.
So in my opinion, Wikipedia is better than most high school teachers, as far as reliability goes.

[MONODA]

the reason we are not allowed to use Wikipedia is becuase it is "not reliable" not for any other reason. Personally I have never seen a single false statement on Wikipedia and dont see how people call it unreliable.

[stooshbunutu]

Use wikipedia any way but when the teachers ask for a source use the name of the person who posted the information rather than just saying wiki

[hyper_ch]

I can say that a few days ago the Swiss Federal Court (highest court in Switzerland) did quote from Wikipedia - so if they can quote from it Wikipedia has to be regarded as a legitimate source (in Switzerland).

[Luggy]

Hi I really like wikipedia and think that it is a great resource. but at my school they do not let us use it as a reference of any kind. I understand that anyone can come in and edit any article, but that edit is recorded and then reviewed. if it is gibberish or it is not cited, it is removed and the person who wrote it is notified, after the third warning they become banned. I seriously think that wikipedia should be considered as a legitimate source, what do you guys think???

Wikipeida is a lot like the news in a way... Every person to writes in the newspaper or talks about a story on TV adds a little bit of bias and may be lacking of all the facts.

Whenever you read or hear anything always ask yourself 'where are they getting their facts from?'

Good news reporters have sources and so do good articles on Wikipedia.

And if the good Wikipedia article has good sources you can use the sources in your report for school ;)