Wikipedia is good, a very good starting point on broad information, although I don't recommend citing it. Depending on your field/topic you most likely will be using something else. Although Wikipedia does link you its sources which could be reliable or credible.
Reliability of Wikipedia and methods of research via information technologies
- Thread starter Marin
- Start date
Scooby Doo
Active member
Awards
Good thread...Wikipedia is reliable, notwithstanding that in today's super-fast information age, there is a margin of error to everything you read. What was true yesterday, may be proven wrong tomorrow. But that's also why online material can adapt faster to changes. I'm all for paper-books, but to say that f.e Aristotle is more reliable on physics just coz his works are printed, than a wikipedia article, now that'd be stupid, right? And if his works are uploaded to an online library, what's the difference? Nothing. Outdated info is outdated, paper or not. Not to mention that those reliable books are usually cited on wikipedia, so you can check them out. If you find a factual mistake? Well, go edit it, anyone can do it after all, right? Of course if I don't find sufficient info on wikipedia, I go to other sources as well, but for a quick research, wikipedia is probably the best choice. Now, for doing school papers, you can't directly quote wikipedia, but you can always look up its cited works and quote those in your paper. However, databases like academia.edu, or google scholar are probably better if you are looking for studies in a specific field- but if you don't want to read (or you just don't have time to read) hundreds of studies, then wikipedia usually serves with a fair and unbiased summary. It always mentions arguments and their counters, the different opinions of different experts...etc. + scholars/Phds...etc can also edit wikipedia...
But again, noone said that wikipedia is the pinnacle of education...
Just one personal example tho...during my uni studies, we had a book on universal legal history that had literally no citations, no sources quoted, no bibliography...nothing. I still don't know how that book could pass. So no, not even uni books written by experts, are always reliable...Not to mention that an academic book authored and lectured by only one or a few people, may use many sources cited, but it's still limited in its scope simply because of the limited number of authors and the limited time and money they could put in their research. You also have to take into consideration the different purposes of a site like wikipedia, and a scientific book. The latter usually summarises the research of its author(s), while wikipedia collects the results of several such authors. Now ofc it's possible that a book is also published on the latest/contemporary results of a field of study, with the intent of giving a general overview. This is called meta-analysis, and it's different from when individual authors publish their own results. Note that wikipedia doesn't necessarily (I guess for most of the times it doesn't) lean towards one side or the other. That's not its purpose. While individual authors usually want to prove something is correct or not,f.e someone writes a book on the evidence for evolution, while someone else writes a book on why that's not true. Wikipedia may cite both -if the authors are relevant enough- but what wikipedia won't do, is to say that the guy who wrote the book on why evolution is fact undoubted, right, and the other guy is bs. Wikipedia may add that the majority of scientists say this or that, but that's all.
And then still there is the problem of being outdated. Sometimes it takes years to revise a book, and sometimes they don't bother correcting the outdated info when it comes to paper books, simply because it's not profitable anymore, but to my experience, wikipedia adapts faster.
Just my 2 cents.
But again, noone said that wikipedia is the pinnacle of education...
Just one personal example tho...during my uni studies, we had a book on universal legal history that had literally no citations, no sources quoted, no bibliography...nothing. I still don't know how that book could pass. So no, not even uni books written by experts, are always reliable...Not to mention that an academic book authored and lectured by only one or a few people, may use many sources cited, but it's still limited in its scope simply because of the limited number of authors and the limited time and money they could put in their research. You also have to take into consideration the different purposes of a site like wikipedia, and a scientific book. The latter usually summarises the research of its author(s), while wikipedia collects the results of several such authors. Now ofc it's possible that a book is also published on the latest/contemporary results of a field of study, with the intent of giving a general overview. This is called meta-analysis, and it's different from when individual authors publish their own results. Note that wikipedia doesn't necessarily (I guess for most of the times it doesn't) lean towards one side or the other. That's not its purpose. While individual authors usually want to prove something is correct or not,f.e someone writes a book on the evidence for evolution, while someone else writes a book on why that's not true. Wikipedia may cite both -if the authors are relevant enough- but what wikipedia won't do, is to say that the guy who wrote the book on why evolution is fact undoubted, right, and the other guy is bs. Wikipedia may add that the majority of scientists say this or that, but that's all.
And then still there is the problem of being outdated. Sometimes it takes years to revise a book, and sometimes they don't bother correcting the outdated info when it comes to paper books, simply because it's not profitable anymore, but to my experience, wikipedia adapts faster.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
I agree with you on it being a direct source and thus a better source for a research paper. 'Just want to add that being a book doesn't make a printed material authentic. It depends on the credentials of the author and still some facts maybe wrong. Books have definite print editions and get reviewed by many experts so the information and views in it get a certain validation or rejection by many and one gets more clear picture of the context when quoting something from it.
I think it's mainly because students are often copy pasting the entire article- that's called plagiarism. Not checking out the original source and letting a website do it for them and take the info without adding anything of their own( or very little), even after knowing where to look, is lazy. Also because it's a
You must be registered for see links
.
You must be registered for see links
So in the end it depends on what you are using it for and how. It's good enough to get a quick reference on a topic, a basic idea but not good enough when the stakes are too high like an academic research. They would want a name whose expertise on the topic they can verify. Anon won't do.
Last edited:
You made it clear on the other thread. I sited an authority on a topic and your use of Wiki was inferior in comparison. You showed your bias and your ignorance.
And those who monitor wiki absolutely can edit it to their bias aswell. We can run circles on this all you want.
Last edited:
What are you even talking about? You're just jumping from one topic to another.
If you want to sort out the other thread than be my guest but it makes no sense for you to talk about that thread in this one. As for this thread, you literally ignored all the posts here including mine and are trying to brush it off by using another thread in wich you insisted on not going off-topic.
Im not trying to link threads. Just pointing out how you used wiki as the end all for a topic claiming others to be ignorant when I clearly sited a superior authority. Your using this thread to try and legitimize your post and failing miserably. Ive read every post here. I liked the one that sited wiki itself stating its disclaimer. The point ive made is I don't object to wiki having value as a research tool but it has its limitations and you clearly are unaware of them.
Not even remotely true. I never called anyone ignorant, nor did I claim Wikipedia is the only thing you'll ever need. Not then, not now. I am not trying to use this thread for anything. It was planned for a while, but never got to be. Just needed a little push.
If you're going to call others ignorant then atleast try to hear other people out before saying something. With all this, you have yet to say anything constructive on the matter, since the past 2 posts were pretty much insults instead of arguments. Insults, unworthy of replies.
Lol ok in response to me siting a book written by a world renown mason, you reply saying I have no idea who masons are and you post a wiki link about masons.
That statement implies my ignorance and your wiki link proved your ignorance as I pointed out. And again this thread was made to ease the butt hurt. Time to move on.
That statement implies my ignorance and your wiki link proved your ignorance as I pointed out. And again this thread was made to ease the butt hurt. Time to move on.
Dark Sonic
Active member
Awards
I remember seeing that G symbol back when I watch "Illuminati" videos. I know it has to be something else and I doubt Wikipedia would let me know.
:| You didn't cite anything significant at all though. You named a book and made a claim to have higher authority on the basis on that name. You exaggerated supposed credentials of the writer of that book while it's not accepted by the said group the writer belonged to. And even if the writer had the said authority as you claimed, your explanation didn't match even that book. You were relying on personal interpretation of the words in that book offered by third parties at best. ( Mostly conspiracy theorists, suspicion about secret societies and their self appointed watchers)
And you gave no name of this individual who made the ultimate conclusion about the nature of the content of the book nor presented his logical thought process. So we do not know how much authority/expertise he has to begin with, to even make such interpretation of the original work. We cannot test reasoning behind his conclusion either, whether he was biased or not. All that Jazz.
So in the end it was no better than a Wikipedia source-in fact Wikipedia was more useful in understanding and finding other sources to find details and 'for and against' arguments.
It would have been a different case if Wikipedia made a certain claim based on a limited quote and you provided us an extended quote to give us more of an insight or corrected a factual error.
Last edited:
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
True information? If something is good for introduction than it can't have false information. Otherwise it wouldn't be considered "good".
As in info on them? Totally. The anime stuff really lacks content tough. I might try and write something when I get time.
*
I'm talking about deepening the subject, looking at many angles, etc. if I go to my professor with some generalities about my research he will beat me up hhhh
if you talk about wikipedia for college research people will laugh at you, believe me.
People doing something doesn't mean it's justified. And sure, you can never look at too many places for info, so long as they're accurate.
As for your post, you used the wrong terms.
Because then you are suppose to do your own research and not let a site do it for you. No one would tell you to be content with Wiki. Anybody can write and edit Wikipedia entries and that means you cannot always count on it for factual information but it is still worth it because free and it can lead one to more valuable and reliable sources of information.
Most of the people here who turn up their nosees seeing a wiki link do so using a Strawman argument. It goes something like this:
" Ha ha ha you are using wiki. you are stupid . I am smart because I used another more unreliable/shady site as my source".
They need to disprove a statement given in it and provide alternate information preferably with more reliable source. Yet most of these people would accept a news piece from an unknown FB page and claim to be it to be more trustworthy media.
The argument that lead to this thread also was similar. Several pages of flames because of a wiki source while the other person simply have no creditable source to show far, for his " opinion". I call it an opinion since the book he cited doesn't back his statement up. He claims it's using symbolism and implying something else. In the end it turned out that it was Wiki that was keeping it simple. The person naming the "book" is actually the one relying on personal theories that have been rejected by the organization the book belongs to.
Another time someone linked me another site claiming wiki was wrong, but it was kind of funny since that site backed up the wiki quote ( meaning at least that entry which I used was correct). Of course it was good that I got the original source which provided me more details, but it had little to do with the argument at hand because we were back to square( quoted part being the same).
So yeah in the end it depends exactly what it's being used for and how.
Last edited: