Wikipedia: Anarchy?

[Tsuyoiko]

Do not use Wikipedia for a reference, it is anarchy there.

I think we've already had a thread about the appropriateness of using Wikipedia as a reference, but it was a long time ago so I thought it might be interesting to discuss it again, especially in the light of Matthew's comment.

I think it's going a bit far to call it 'anarchy'. While I wouldn't dream of quoting Wikipedia in an academic essay, I think it's fine for our purposes, in informal debate.

A study by the scientific journal Nature showed that on Science, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test

The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in theory.

;-)

 

[Yan]

I think that Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia. I've been using it since now and I always found what I was looking for. I know that sometimes the information isn't true but we just have to see the references and if the information has a good reference, this information is true. Anyway, there's not a lot of false information on Wikipedia...

 

[Kirakira1232]

You would never quote wikipedia in anything thats involved in Academia. I can sort of understand how it can be seen as "anarchy" because anyone can change/graffiti information there due to the wonderful anonymity of the internet. Its fine if your like looking for some information on a casual interest or just get some information at a glance about someone.

The only danger is if you use Wikipedia as your one and ONLY source. With knowledge you need to read a wide range of sources. Wikipedia is nice at a glance but its not something you would take completely seriously.

 

[Clawn]

I've seen, on more than one occasion, just how easy it is to create and disseminate false information using Wikipedia. I agree that it can be a wonderful tool for looking up information quickly and casually, but-just like any other informative device-should be verified using outside, unrelated source. I will admit, as just about everyone here most certainly will, that I use Wikipedia to look up information about favorite bands, or certain current events, but I think that using it for actual academic purposes is a stretch of the imagination.

Condensed: Wikipedia entries should be read with a skeptical eye.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Homer Simpson uses it !

In one episode , Lisa quotes her info coming from Wik , and Homer says when they get home he will "correct" Wik to read the way he believes things to be. Funny but scary.

Uncle Frank

 

[tada]

I've actually had quite a few professors (mostly math professors) recommend Wikipedia. I don't think it should be quoted directly, but as a study tool, it is good.

 

[nanook]

One of the good things about Wiki is, that you can correct it yourself, if you think, that there is an error. To put it right, you will have to find good sources, which means, that you will have learned even more about the subject in question, maybe you will have read another book or two on it, once you're done with your correction. So, with a bit of time and leisure, Wiki can be as educating as it is entertaining.

 

[Kenjirou]

In Wikipedia there are sometimes slots for "sources" next to certain points, which allow you to confirm the truth of the documents... on this note, isn't the entire internet anarchy? A hacker could take control of a well respected website and set up false information and swiftly depart, and if they were good enough they could leave without any traces. Now isn't that more scary than wikipedia?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I think Wikipedia is awesome, i use it very regularly (for example, its very handy for finding out more info on Japanese singers histories and discographies etc)- i know its information is not always accurate, but on the internet its often very hard to get any real assurance over the total accuracy/truth of any information with any site.