General discussion

Wikipedia 101: Check your sources

"A few months back, The New Yorker published a long piece about online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This week, the magazine ran an editors' note detailing a problem with one of the sources in the article."
http://msn-cnet.com.com/2061-11199_3-6163357.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

Part of the reason why Wiki links are not accepted as authoritative academic citations. However, it is still a good way to start research on a topic. And, if you use Wikiseek you will only see info from the Wiki and included links.
http://www.wikiseek.com/

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Wikipedia 101: Check your sources
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Wikipedia 101: Check your sources
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
I'm a substitute teacher, usually in the

local high school. Recently a teacher left an assignment for his kids to get online info about a topic. Every one went to Wikipedia first.
I had no written instructions ruling out Wiki, so I let it go. BUT I told them that many people above the HS level (College profs, employers) won't allow Wiki because of the well-discussed problems. Also, the mainstream sources (Britannica, World Book e.g.) are to be preferred IMO because
(a) they are mainstream; learn those first, and
(b) their contributors and credentials are front and center.

I feel one can use Wiki to "start research on a topic", but not as strongly as you do. If the Wiki article is biased, wrong, or fraudulent the reader may be prejudiced before going to another source.

- Collapse -
My university lecturer says the same thing

For one of my classes of my Education course, she says that Wikipedia is preferred as a "starting point" to research, much like Google. But as a credible academic source, highly frowned upon.

- Collapse -
I use Wikipedia

However most of the time I just look for basic information. If I need to use it for a project, I use it to get the general idea. If I want more meat, I go to one of the cited links or one of the external links. The more, the better. Usually ones with a lot of pertinent links can be trusted. That means that someone takes their time to establish a good article.

Vandalism isn't a problem usually. Most of it is so bad you can ignore it. I just ran into an article today that said "WiKiPEIA sucks!!!!!!!" Very easy to ignore and then delete (I'm a good Wikizen after all).

CNET Forums