Wikipedia definitely gets a bad rap. Even the popular media has spent some time and energy making fun of the user interactive website. Still, semester after semester, I have students tell me how much they love it -- even my thesis advisor told me the other day how useful she finds the website for certain things. Sooooo, I'm not going to tell you what I think of Wikipedia. I want you to tell ME what YOU think of Wikipedia.
Post your comments on using Wikipedia as a research tool. What is its place in the research process? Does it even have a place at all? Why does it get such a bad rap? Do you use wikipedia? Comments are due by class time next week. I'll give a well-developed comment 5 points. If you include at least one strong piece of evidence (by strong, I mean you should include a link or some other source citation), I'll give you 10 points.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Wikipedia Really So Bad?
Labels: Quizzes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
I think Wikipedia is a good source to get you started on whatever topic you are researching. I use the information that Wikipedia has to relate and find more in depth and credible sources on the web. I do not think that Wikipedia is reliable enough to use as a source for a paper, but it is a good tool to get me or anyone eles a start on the research of the topic.
I personally do not like wikipedia for the simple fact that anyone can change an article if they want and add new information. So how can anything be credible? People can change an article and put nothing that makes sence and just put thier opinion. If am doing a report and need nothing but facts then wikipedia is not going to give me that. It may give me some but someone could make up something and say its a fact and it will be left there. I don't think wikipedia should be used on anything your researching for lets say your job, school work, etc. I think it should just be used for your own personal interests. If even that. I am the type of person who wants straight facts. I think it gets such a bad wrap because anyone who has access to the internet can put anything they want even if it's straight up bogus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. When did the definition of encyclopedia become what people think they know or what pepole feel about something? On this website it says this in the second and third paragraph. Hence this is why I think wikipedia should not be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
I usually use Wikipedia as my first source to look on. The reason why I do this is because it includes links towards the bottom that you can click on to get more information. Do I use the content of Wikipedia? Usually ONLY if the references are reliable sources. Wikipedia is a good starting point for research because it gives you somewhat of an insight of the subject/object. It is also a good way to look up vocab and medical or business terms to further understand them. A link that gives a little insight is: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/is-wikipedia-reliable.html (make sure you also read the comments to get others views about it as well)
I think Wikipedia is a good source for research when the article your looking up is cited and the author of the article is creditable. There are times when Wikipedia is not appropriate. A Wikipedia article said that the Holocaust did not happen. Clearly not a good time to cite Wikipedia.I use Wikipedia but I use it to find relevant issues to better my research.
Wikipedia is a free web based, collaborative, encyclopedia project by defintion. I dont think that a "project" that is "collaborative" is a stable enough source to cite. Without the authors having to be accreditable to anyone or anything means anyone can put information in where the see fit. I have used wikipedia in the past but dont see myself using it in the future for a site of reference. Like I found in a article in the New York Times, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-backstory-of-wikipedias-take-on-the-iraq-war/?src=me quotes "lack of understanding readers have about the backstory of each entry on the Web site." Clearly pointing how people dont know where the information is coming from therefore it cant be proven.
Crowder Monday Afternoon.
When I think of using of using Wikipedia as a source for research, I don't necessarily think about citing it but rather using it to link me to more information about the subject I'm researching. Wikipedia has a large amount of information, which for the most part is fairly accurate, but; my favorite part about Wikipedia is the citations users submit when they post information. Many times the citations can lead you to a more credible source. Wikipedia is also very helpful when researching a fairly recent event or topic. Wikipedia's greatest weakness of allowing anyone to post is also it's greatest strength because it allows for easy submission of recent up to date information.
http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/for_faculty/faculty_find/wikipedia/
Jacob Manlove
U of A : Wednesday Evening
Wikipedia is good as a quick reference to look things up, but can't be trusted as a credible source. I use it all the time to look up information that I want to know personally, but I never use it for research projects. I personally have found false information on the website several times. For example, the article about the musician, "Buckethead" used to say he was nine feet tall (he's not nine feet tall). http://knol.google.com/k/wikipedia-criticism-of# The articles I read all seemed a little harsh for what I think of wikipedia, but they get a point a cross. Wikipedia can't bet taken as fact and many people do take it that way. Wikipedia is very quickly polluting the facts that we have left. I love wikipedia, BUT it should only be used for quick reference or for fun.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/
I believe Wikipedia is a great website for looking up information on a thousands of topics. It is full of information and can be very useful when needing to find information on a certain topic. When researching for a paper or other school releated piece of work wikipedia is not the best tool to use. The only problem with wikipedia is that it can be update by anyone who creates an account with the website. This allows people to edit any page they want and they can put what they want on that page. Wikipedia is also very hard to find sources from. Some articles are cited but many are not. I use Wikipedia many times because it is a very interesting website that is full of information. I will sometimes spend hours on my computer just reading through wikipedia articles because i lose track of time while i am reading about different topics.
I would like to persuade you that Wikipedia is a good launch point for research, especially in the context of source material. Although the content is viewed to be suspect, I would argue that there are sufficient guidelines in place to screen input. I have found however that no matter the depth or point of view of the content the resources cited is invaluable. Take for instance today's article on the Rosetta Stone; a concise timeline driven article that explains how the messages inscribed were proven to be different translations of the same text. Cited in the references was this website: http://books.google.at/books?id=9StAAAAAYAAJ
a series of photocopied pages of a German book on the Rosetta Stone. This is a resource that I do not have in Joplin, MO, or would even think to look for had I not looked first at Wikipedia.
I think wikipedia is a good place to start for a paper or anything. Not a place to only get your information from. I think you need to look at other sights to make sure the information you recieved from wikipedia is correct not just made up.
Wikipedia is a good place to start a paper,and a good place to go to find additional information for what ever topic . However you need to be careful when using the information on wikipedia and make sure the info come from creditable sources.
I personally do not use Wikipedia and will never use it for a research starting point due to the fact that anyone can say anything about what they want. So therefore not everything is credible. Someone can be very persuasive and put something on Wikipedia that sounds right but is totally innacurate. Therefore I do not think anyone should use Wikipedia unless for personal use. Now I know not everything on Wikipedia is useless because credible people with credible information put things on it but for the common person they may not know the difference or know how to spot it so this causes further problems. I think Wikipedia gets it's bad wrap from this. Also in my opinion I do not think that Wikipedia should be used in any point of anyone's research process. If your going to do research get your information from a credible site from credible people.
As a user of Wikipedia, I believe it is a great tool to get your research rolling. Although most of the information posted on the website is not from a reputable scholar that does not mean it is all false. Take for example the Wiki search on the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states. This is a great example of how Wikipedia can be useful in researching a common topic. Unfortunately, too many people think Wikipedia has a bad rep because some info is incorrect. So, because some of the information is false someone researching a topic should not use all info found on the site. Someone researching on Wikipedia should remeber, just because some info may be incorrect does not mean all the info is incorrect.
In my opinion, Wikipedia can definitely be a useful source of beginning research. One magor problem with Wikipedia is the subjective nature of the content contained on the site. I think Wikipedia is a little like money, it can be used for good or for bad. I think that the main problem is that most people don't realize that it is subjective! If you recognize that anyone can post on Wikipedia, then it can be a useful research tool for opinions. Another positive is that it can be an open forum for speech and diverse opinions. Checkout these links. mgmt339.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/158
www.tetridia.com/1021
Wikipedia is a good "kick off" for any sort of research. It gives you a good idea of what to look for. The only downfall I see is that any person on the internet can post/edit things on Wikipedia. In order to get correct information, it would be necessary to dig deeper in other places.
I think that wikipedia can be used in order to get a basis of where you want to expand your research. For example, if I am writing a paper on a specific person I might look them up on wikipedia in order to get a quick overview of their life. But if I am going to write a paper on them I would want to get my information from a credible and not a subjective source.
It's funny, I have used Wikipedia many times for personal use, ie..information that I might be curious about. I have learned from this class, however, that in order to have credible sources for our assignments, we need to pay attention to who the author is, and how accessible it is to change without proof of the facts. We have to dig deeper - and follow the necessary steps to be sure the information is accurate...not just opinion.
I feel that Wikipedia is a great place to begin researching a topic. After you do some basic research on Wikipedia, you will know more information about your topic. After gathering the information from Wikipedia, you can go to a more reliable search engine and check to make sure that the information you recieved from Wkipedia is valid.
I personally believe that there is merit to be bestowed upon wikipedia. I believe this to be true from the level of information displayed and the crossing referencing from third party hosts.However, this does not always mean that the information is as credible as information retrieved through solid research on academic databases.
I think Wikipedia is a great source to find information. However, you cannot believe everything that is on it because anyone can write in information whether it is true or now. When I was in highschool, I used this site quite a bit because you can type a subject in the the search engine that will direct you to a wikipedia site on the subject of your choice. When you get to the site, it gives you all kinds of information on your subject. For example, my speech might be over Audrey Hepburn, so I typed it into google and found info from wikipedia that included all aspects of her life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Hepburn
It is a great place to start your research, but I don't think I would ever cite it due to the reliability issue.
Wikipedia is what it is. A free open source of information that anybody can access or edit. I personally think Wikipedia is an effective way of educating oneself on any given subject. With that being said, I think that the site is a legitimate tool for brainstorming, gathering basic info, and finding other, more reliable sources. I also find that the argument that you can't always trust what you find on the site to be sort of bunk. It is the internet. So the same can hold true for any site on the web. Also, I think if you read the articles on any given page, you should be able to discern what is fact and what isn't.
Carolyne Walker
I feel that Wikipedia is a very useful tool when writing a paper. Wikipedia provides web links to other information regarding the subject matter. I am not saying that it is a good idea to only use Wikipedia, but it is a good place to start, and when in doubt dig a little deeper and find more information on the subject in question.
I believe that wikipedia can be either a good source or a bad source. I think if the page cites reliable sources I think it should be fine. If the page isn't cited then it could be anywhere from sort of right to not anywhere close. I think it is all about judgement.
I believe that wikipedia can be a starting point to get info on things. I know that it can have false information. I have been told that wikipedia is great and you dont need anyother info. I have to disagree. It may have information that you need, but it will not have all in great detail like an encylopedia would have. The best to tell on the info is the citations. I also think that it is all about the person and how they use the resources.
Personally i dont trust wikipidia. Anyone can get on there at anytime and mess with the information that is giving. My US Goverment teacher back in high school confessed that himself would go on there to mess with the webb site. It does hand good information, but you always have to double think weather the information is true. Im not to familiar with it, but i perfer to use another site
I think Wikipedia can be a good place to start your research (as long as you fact check) because it can give you some general knowledge on a topic in a condensed form. I would never use Wikipedia for getting facts or as a source to build my research around though because anyone can post on it. I think it gets a bad rap because our teachers have warned us against it so many times but also because not always reliable. I will use it occasionally for my own use but I never have or would use it for a paper.
I myself have never been to the Wikipedia website only because I have heard that many of the articles on there can be edited by anyone at anytime. Therefore I son't see how it can be a reliable piece of information for a paper. Who is to say that there isn't someone out there that just wants to go in and put the wrong information about something as a joke or what ever. I will look at the website but I would never use it for any type of research.
I think Wikipedia could be a good starting point in research. I think it should only be used as pure entertainment. It can be hacked into entirely too easy. I have read an article that says you can trust it but verify. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/. I have read many on MSNBC about many different hoaxes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/. I personally do not use it for facts but have visited the site for entertainment purposes.
I have never actually used the site mainly because before this blog post I always related it to a dictionary type of referenced site. It's amazing what you learn in college! I can see this being a site that I will have to start checking into with everything I look up just to analyze if it is close to the actual websites that I would have originally accessed.
Just Google Mistakes on Wikipedia, tons of articles. This is excerpt is from an article posted on Feb 12,2006 at thetimes.co.uk,
Jimmy Wales, 39, founder and president of Wikipedia, said he had expected vandalism to have been greater. “I thought it would be overrun with idiots but there are far more people doing good than those who try to be harmful.”
He added: “We have now got people looking at the identity numbers of people changing entries about British politicians to see if any of them have come from the Commons. We think it’s funny when we see the source of something and one senator’s office is editing to call another senator a douche bag.”
Really? How can you possibly respect, let alone use any information as credible from a website with a president/ceo that talks like that. He expects people to trash and defame his websites' information. He is praising himself because it's not worse.He is laughing about politicians calling each other names(bad names).The article goes on to quote a source saying that Wikipedia is the "online equivalent of egg-throwing." It also states that Wikipedia, apparently realizing they have problems, will be setting up a fixed online version of their site. HMMMM. Even Wikipedia thinks it's information isn't credible. I'll get my information from a less controversial website.
P.S I noticed a lot of the comments say something like, Wikipedia is a good place to start a paper but should not be considered credible or it's a good reference point but needs the facts checked. ????????? Not trying to say any one persons' way of information gathering is right or wrong, but, wouldn't it be easier to just skip using Wikipedia and get your information from a credible source the first time around.
Wikipedia is not a credible web page to research information on; it is the downfall of research papers everywhere. I have here a link to a Wikipedia website where I have personally uploaded my own information. You can all be the judge of what is correct and what is clearly false information. This is not to say that EVERYTHING you read about on Wikipedia is wrong, all I’m trying to point out is that you don’t know if someone is trying to play a prank, just trying to be funny, or if they really believe what they are saying is true. Some of what is on Wikipedia is true but unless you know the facts before hand you are never going to figure them out using this preposterous website. So check out what I have written and you make your own decision about the infamous Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerlifting
I think alot of people see wikipedia as 'bad' just because its relativly new. A book can be just as unreliable but because books are older and they're what people are used to, they are seen as much more trust worthy.
I see wikipedia as a great jumping off point. You can gather information on a subject and in some cases, see both sides of an argument.
Ok, well Wikipedia is a good site but some of the information is not accurate due to you have different writters. you can go in on different topics and update the information. So some of the information from the site may not be up to date and not completely the truth about the subject matter.
Anyone and everyone can post something on wikipedia. We went on in High School (seinor year) and said that Taylor Swift married one of my friends 5 years ago. It lasted for about 1 day. Someone else reviewed the site and found that error and corrected it. From that instantce I realized that evern though many people can post that doesn't mean that there cannot be good on there. I will never use wikipedia for a paper or speech, but I do turn to it when I want a quick fact. (I know oxymoron right!) It serves the purpose for quick overview on something and a place to see if you really want to do the speech on that person or whatever.
Although wikipedia gets a bad reputation, it's a reasonable one for what wikipedia actually is. Defined as a "collabrative project" this seems hardly a source to credibly cite. Without the requirement for authors to give credit to anyone or anything means that information can be put in where the authors sees fit. The upside is that these facts can be checked and corrected, and often times are fixed. That's the reasoning I suppose in using Wikipedia as a "jumping off point". I love wikipedia for its entertainment but I never use it as a source for research.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-26/tech/wikipedia.editors_1_wikipedia-encyclopedia-online-communities?_s=PM:TECH
In my opinion, Wikipedia is not a bad thing. It can be a great tool to use if you know the right way to use it's information. Wikipedia is not a credible source. I say this because anyone is able to contribute to it's information, meaning the source does not have to be an expert. For instance, I could contribute to text I have no knowledge about, possibly leading people to false information. This is why you should never believe what you read on Wikipedia until you check the sources provided. When sources are provided, Wikipedia becomes a good tool for research. You can then navigate away from Wikipedia to a credible source. You should not use Wikipedia as a credible source, but as a tool to find credible sources. After watching a youtube video on how Wikipedia works, I have much more knowledge on the subject.
Here is the link to the informative video about Wikipedia: http://youtu.be/QY8otRh1QPc
Olivia Sheppard
(wed. evening class)
In my opinion, Wikipedia is a place for opinions. You can post anything you want on there. I suggest that if you use this cite to research it first. To make sure it is correct.
Kim Kirkpatrick
(mon. evening class)
Wikipedia, to me, is a useful tool when doing research. However it definetly should not be the only research site that you use. I personally use wikipedia as one of my research tools everytime I need to do research on something, whether it is a paper I got to write or a speech I have to present. I also use at least two other sites just to make sure I get all the right information. For the most part wikipedia's information is correct. Even though anyone in the world can write anything they want on it, but usually when someone writes something that is completely bogus it is usually quickly changed by somebody else to be correct. There may be a few small details that are incorrect on wikipedia that are incorrect but for the most part it is legit. Just be sure to use commen sense when doing research and if you spot something you know isn't write then do some more research on a different research site.
Everybody heres Wikipedia and instantly thinks false information. Are they right are wrong? It depends, if you are looking up a page for information on Michael Jordan or President Obama the information you find will be credible. It is citied and correct. Lets say you want to find out about Sophia, North Carolina, thats the first random article that popped up, you can change the whole information of the town. Check out the new and improved Sophia, North Carolina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia,_North_Carolina
Shea Sanford
I am kind of both sided on if wiki is good or bad in my opinion it just depends on what you are looking for if it is on a celebrity or a band its most likely a good source but for any important information on political characters and such I do not think that a wiki is a good source
Sarah Stuart Monday afternoon/evening
I personally know that some information on Wikipedia is wrong but even knowing that, I still think that using Wikipedia as an initial research resource can be allowed. One can read an article on Wikipedia to get a feel for the subject at hand before hours of research go into a project. I feel though, Wikipedia should not be cited as research for a college paper. I agree with www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/07/wikipedia, in the fact that college students are going to use and be involved in Wikipedia no matter how hard professors try to keep them away from it. According to this site, "nine professors at prominent colleges [who] have agreed to make creating, augmenting, and editing Wikipedia entries part of their students’ coursework." I believe that this idea is good for students. It allows them to be able to add truth to Wikipedia. Even though I believe Wikipedia is a good starting point, I encourage everyone to double check anyting that is read within the site.
I use wikipedia as a starting point for my research. I basically just go on to wikipedia to get the general information of the subject I am researching. I don't think that it is a reliable source for research, therefore I do not cite information from it in my research papers. But, if you are looking to get the general information for a given topic then it is a good resource.
Although the ability for anyone to contribute to Wikipedia makes the data questionable, it is still one of the most used starting points in research projects. It is important to remember that citing any encyclopedia as the main resource for research is a poor idea. One of the main concerns with wikipedia as a citation has been that the information can change constantly. They have attempted to address this with a new tool that "links the exact URL (web address) of the version of the article cited. Every change in Wikipedia is carefully logged, and it is possible to review almost all of the past versions of any page." http://www.suite101.com/content/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-research-tool-a160977
I have always been told that Wikipedia is a bad web site and that we as students, should never use it. I got on there the other day and did some research for my speech and actually found some very useful information. It is a very useful web site for telling about most of the famous people, although you do have to follow it up to make sure that what is on there is accurate.
Ok so what is Wikipedia? It is a gathering of totally uncensored information. It most times does not have a reputable source. and is often wrong on subtleties. However with that said, it is almost always my first choice. You just have to filter it. Once you have the basic information from Wikipedia, then you are able to sift thru the web with a slightly faster form. I'm not advising doing any surgery with the instructions on there. However if you need quickly how to make a sling in first aid, there is a good start. So here is what I do. Type in first aid in google. Bing second hit. Quickly scan the article. Go to Key points. ABC's good start. Then D for "Deadly Bleeding". Thats not exactly how the US teaches it but this is a multi-culture synopsis of life, written from many countries. So my final statement would be, buyer beware. This is not always the most correct information. But it is not only a great place to start, it is my place to start..... Ed Macken, Crowder Monday Evening
I think that wikipedia is great to use as a starting point for any paper. It can be used to get information quickly about almost any subject, which is very useful when trying to pick a topic for a paper. It's not a citable source though because it can be changed by any regular joe that decides to get on the internet. I don't see anything wrong with it, but it is also not a reputable source to cite in any paper.
I agree with most of the comments on here about wikipedia it can be minipulated by anyone and include what ever they want to say about anyone. Just because someone writes it does not make it fact. There is alot of information that is not accurate and there is no way for anyone to know who really wrote what or how much knowledge they have about that subject. I do agree that it can be a great tool for basic information but I think that really anything that you find on it you should go ahead and research further because the chances of it not being accurate are pretty high. So for fun and fact checks on things yes I think it can be used. For reasearch projects and reliable information no I think you should either avoid it all together or double check any facts that you might find
I used to use Wikipedia all the time untill i relized its not accurate or up to date sometimes. it does help out some thogh. It helps mostly to get started on research because there is usually some links relevent to the topic posted, but it does get a bad rapp every class i go to the instructor usually says dont use wiki but i do anyways.
I think that Wikipedia is a good reference tool to start your basic research on a topic but we must make sure that we double check our source that is providing the information to Wikipedia. I feel that to be 100% sure that you are getting creditable information, you must do your research on a much more creditable internet site.
WILL SNEED-
Wikipedia is a great source to begin your research with. I have used Wikipedia in the past because it is a "easy read" and its always fairly organized. Every time I used Wikipedia I would always back my information up with another resource due to the fact that anyone can edit the information displayed. Wikipedia is great for quick information, but can be dangerous if it is the only source used. http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/09/is-wikipedia-a-good-resource-for-college-term-papers/
Wikipedia seems to be a good place to start off with. It gives a lot of good general information to get the start of a speech or paper. From there I like to use the sources at the bottom to then move on and find more legit sources. After that I use Google Scholar.
i think it can get you started on what you looking for but you have to watch what it says in the webb now i think most of it may be true after i do more research on the topic
MMeier monday night class
Honestly, I love wikipedia. Although i would never go there for information regarding a paper, i go there for simple information often. It has loads of information that is generally correct and is formatted very easily so i can find the information that i need very quickly.
Matt Seaton
Personally i like Wikipedia. True it can be edited by anyone but that doesnt mean people go on there just to false inform people or change topics. I use it for quick info on a topic that i have no idea about or one that i might have some understanding of but just need a refresher course. Also as said in other comments, it is a good place to start and just find out something about a topic then go from there and either check it with a credible site or further seek information on the topic at hand.
I know the major weakness of Wikipedia is accuracy. Even though many people are aware of that fact, majority of people use Wikipedia as their basic research engine. For me, I think Wikipedia is a good place to start searching about something that I want to know about. Since it is the major source of information for most of the people, I can get all sorts of information there. However, it is the individuals' ability to filter the results shown from Wikipedia. For people who doubts the facts in Wikipedia they should try to use 'Knol' from Google. I looked up some information about Knol, and it made me think it could be more credible than Wikipedia.
This is the link that shows difference between Knol and Wikipedia :
http://www.labnol.org/internet/favorites/compare-google-knol-wikipedia-encyclopedia/3961/
Wikipedia is a research tool that uses information from all different sources. It should only be used at a starting point to gather information for research. wikipedia can be altered by anyone and the information that is present may not always be reliable. On the source pages, there is a list of different sources that were used to write the wikipedia page and are most likely more reliable. http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and_Tech/Is-WIkipedia-a-Reliable-Source/2925153
I have used wikipedia a couple of time even though it has resources which are not credible. It helps me understand similarities and compare with other sources.
Wikipedia is great! you really cannot think so, it has all the information your need on just about every topic... and no it is not unreliable.. that information is monitored very closely.. if you change any of the information it will be changed back in minutes... If you continue to change the information it will ban you. Wikipedia is used as much as it is because it is reliable.. it's fun to joke about it sure, but isn't Google just as unreliable? When you go to Google for links too information you could get just about anything.. if you click the Wikipedia link at least you know what your in for... and yes I use Wikipedia if you have picked up on that yet.
... Jordan James...
Wikipedia is a good place to get inofrmation that you need. In the past i've heard anyone could put information on wikipedis but now a days the information people put on it is being edited by qualified panels so it is corrected more quickly as well.
I believe wikipedia can be a good source but as a researcher you must be careful. It may be a good site to use to refresh your memory of public knowledge. Other times if the author is cited and credible the information could be used in your research.
Post a Comment