Wikipedia NOT a reliable source.

I have noticed a fair number of posts, that utilize incomplete and misleading information. Upon further investigation, much of this is the result of members using Wikipedia as the sole source of information on a given subject. Wikipedia, while a valuable resource, is not a complete, nor totally accurate source, for quality information. It is a work in progress, full of inconsistencies, missing data, and incomplete entries. ATS would be better served with a deeper look into any subject and it would behoove all members to conduct research beyond a simple Wiki peek.

This is not just a problem here on ATS, but in the world in general. An increasing number of major universities, are banning the use of Wikipedia in all term papers, and disallowing any Wikipedia references. Wikipedia encyclopedia is banned at some colleges.

The web is a remarkable resource for information, but it would be wise for all ATS members to remember, that good quality research, reaches beyond a simple Wiki search, and looks deeper, into recognized peer reviewed sources, for accurate, and complete information.

As we endeavor to Deny Ignorance, one must remember to seek deeper pools of knowledge.

"The revolution will not be verified."
--Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report.


And for those of you who missed the train...

During the 7/30/2006 episode of the Colbert Report, in which he coined the term wikiality (essentially a reality in which facts are malleable), Colbert did a pretty fine job of demonstrating just how silly it is to rely on Wikipedia for actual facts. You can enjoy the spoof within the spoof here. The video of the segment is here (scroll down to the last video in the list).

/tn.



[edit on 11-4-2007 by teleonaut]

Usually people point to to this Nature article when discussing Wiki’s reliability.

The warnings on top of article usually give you an idea of the article’s quality.

Like these…

This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

And I often see the neutrality warning.

Whenever I refer someone to a Wiki, it's only because I've researched the subject in question myself and I'm confident in what the article says. Instead of quoting a large number of sites and sources, it's easier to link the Wiki page.

I think the service that Wiki is attempting to provide is in good form, however, I agree with colleges and Universities in not allowing it to be the definitive source for all papers.

Yes, a lot of students are lazy - and Wiki doesn't help provide a service outside of a brief overview of most topics.

Besides, being able to find alternative sources shows the teacher that the student took a little more time than just "cruising the internet" for his/her answers to any given subject.

It's a shame we're moving into an era where the time honored and noble book is rarely cracked, and perhaps refusing Wiki sources is an attempt to keep students well rounded and less "internet dependant".

Heck - I can think of a multitude of reasons why the enitre concept of a "single source" is both wonderful and dangerous.

Wonderful, because everyone will be reading from the same page, and dangerous for exactly the same reason.

Kudos to the teachers, but Wiki is still a wonderful place for an overview on certain subjects, though by no means the end all be all in research and knowledge.

It's still a good start.

We were not allowed to use anything as a source if it could be found only on the web when I was in high-school and university. I don't know what the policy is at the high-school anymore, but I'm entirely certain it remains the same at the universities I attended. As all of us here know, the internet is certainly a double-edged sword - for every accurate piece of information there is at least another piece of nonsense/sketchy/biased by omission/whatever data.

You need to stick to the peer-reviewed work attached in at least some way to a real university if you don't want to waste too much time sorting through the BS. Not as exciting, I know, but it is true.

That said, I find wikipedia to be a wonderful tool to use as a "jumping off" point to get ideas and properly research new avenues of possibility. It definitely has its place, and I am grateful for it.

edit: typo

[edit on 12-4-2007 by AlphaHumana]

In university, I was specifically told not to cite Wikipedia as a source for anything, due to the unreliability of the content. You have no idea of knowing whether that history entry you read on wiki was written by a college professor specializing in the subject, or some joker with an agenda to push.

I find wikipedia generally reliable for any subject that doesn't have any kind of controversy around it. For example, if I want to know how old my favourite actor is, or the birthdate of an author, or that kind of thing, it's excellent. If I want to know more about George H.W. Bush's career in the CIA, wiki is probably a bad choice, as there is a debate about how early he worked for them, and depending who the last poster on the article was, you may find that facts undesirable to the poster's stance on the issue have been cut out.

A Wiki peek may be a good place to get started on researching a subject, just to get the basic information. Any Wiki peek should be followed by at a minimum, a second search for corroborating information. Google it. Much like peer review, looking at multiple sources will give you a better grasp of the subject and allow you to weed out the poor or misleading information. Sometimes, a deeper look is required and one can use more traditional methods combined with the power of the Web. Always look at WHO is providing the information and what their professional background is. Look to see if they have an agenda or if they belong to any specific group. Check and see what scientific credentials they have. If you wish to be accurate, then be thorough.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

That's what college professors say all the time. I used to use it but now I quit because I got two horrible grades after using wikipedia for work instead of the book.

i'm currently an undergrad at a decent-sized university and it's kinda interesting to contrast the older teachers who abhor the internet and the other ones who are on the "cutting edge" (term applied very... liberally) of technology, who encourage their students to set up their own Wikis and vblog to their hearts' desire.

My older profs bar me from using the internet, nevermind just Wikipedia.

My younger ones, on the other hand, treat it as gospel and will allow you to get away with murder when writing a research paper, which has been to my benefit recently, but has given me pause to think.

I never seriously use Wikipedia as a source but rather as a guidepost. I like Terapin's view that it's a good way to get started on a subject, but is by no means comprehensive or "correct"... A clear lack of hard sources for everything leads me away from the place. I'll sometimes start clicking around and discover something new that I then go off and research myself more in depth, but I never use it as a "last line" sort of thing.


It's like Michael Scott from The Office says: "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

some people like it , some people dont, but just like google we all use it in one form or another.

it is a community of knowledge. if there is any doubt about the source or the content, it states that right there on the page while you are reeding, there is no fine print. it is what it is.

I hope people keep using it regardless of how light some of info can be. some professors could be a little more open minded about it and support it a little more. If you do further research on something you started at wiki on, and find something wiki did not have, add it on. Your doing the WORLD a service.