I am only recently discovering Wikipedia, and find it to be a useful information source on a good many topics. However, I am concerned about its reputation as a valid source, particularly when offering citations, since just about anyone can add to the entries. I’ve noticed wrong information on there, similar to how the information on IMDB.com (relating to movies) can also be submitted by anyone and is occasionally inaccurate.
If this has been asked and answered before on the Dope, I apologize in advance. But in general, is Wikipedia an acceptable source to cite?
If you’re wanting to offer general concise explanatory information, it can be a wonderful source. If the topic is contentious, however, it’s a dreadful place to base your argument. There’s lots of people wanting to change the biography of George Bush, or the history of Israel, but there’s not many people wanting to go and alter the entry for ‘fluorescent light bulb’.
Yeah, when I’m referring to wikipedia here on the board, I generally start with an apology.
To add a little to what gorillaman said – when you have no other idea where to go to look for background information, wikipedia can be a great place to start.
If you know that there’s all kinds of info and opinion about the topic on the web and are looking for an authorative source to cut through the clutter… don’t even bother with wikipedia would be my advice.
Any reference source (Web or printed) can contain errors. The nature of the Wikipedia means that:
[ul]
[li]On non-controversial, but important, topics, errors will be found by others and corrected[/li][li]On controversial topics, you can be presented with several viewpoints and sources to back them up.[/li][li]There will be more inconsistency in presentation than there is in a professionallly edited multi-author encyclopedia.[/li][li]You get good information on very minor, even arcane, stuff, provided there is a Wikipedia enthusiast who has gone to the trouble of posting an article.[/li][/ul]
Hmm. I wonder if Wikipedia has an entry for J-Bolt?
As you note, Lou, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. There are enough people checking the site regularly that undisguised vandalism is quickly caught and erased, but factual errors can creep in. I would not cite Wikipedia for a specific factual provision if I could help it, but the quality of a cite is ultimately up to the person asking for it. Of course, Wikipedia can be very useful in broad terms, and in that sense it might be a worthwhile cite, especially if you’ve got other backup.
I frequently cite Wikipedia if what I want is a concise discussion or a simple explanation of basic information on a scientific subject. Most of the time it’s pretty good. But if I need information on something more esoteric, I’ll usually look for a more detailed source.
I get the impression that it’s not closely edited. At least one sciwentific entry that I looked into I found to be in error. On the other hand, most of the information that I look up that I have reliable info on from elsewhere is accurate. The bottom line is that it’s a good quick resource, but watch your step.
Heck, I could say the same about most references – hard copy or internet.
While I concur with GorillaMan that it depends, it has to be said that Wikipedia has an ethos of covering controversial subjects in an even-handed manner. And I think they do a pretty good job of it. Go have a look at any of the subjects he mentioned – I looked at the Israel one by way of example – and you’ll get a flavor for how this is accomplished. And by the way, Wikipedia has posted an answer to the most common objections, such as the ones you raise.
And for many non-controversial and obscure topics (Hundreds of Westrogothia, anyone?), Wikipedia is basically the only game in town, cite-wise.
That’s the great thing - if you find an error, there’s no excuse for that error to remain, because you can correct it. It’s not closely edited, it’s widely edited. Yes, this has drawbacks…but to complain about errors, and to only do that, is missing the point.
It also depends if you care about who you’re getting your information from. If you want information from some yayhoo who can get an internet connection, then wikipedia is fine. If you want info from an expert in the field, well nothing beats a good ol’ book.
That said, if you need to know about something quickly and it isn’t all that important that it be right, then wikipedia is dandy. I use it more often than I’d like to admit.
Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference by academics. The nature of its open anonymous contibution guarantees that everything on it is suspect. At best, it is a place to begin research (and it can be helpful in that regard) but it is not where the effort should end.
~
CapnPitt: Books have no guarantee of accuracy, either. There are plenty of downright wrong things published in books even in the most cut-and-dried technical fields, let alone when the topic is controversial. This is a review of a book about the ISO standard for the C programming language that turned out to be a real pile of schildt. Nothing controversial about it, but a book that was just plain wrong got published by a fairly respectable publishing house even so. And don’t even get me started about all the books about UFO abductions and JFK conspiracy theories and the ones by Kevin Trudeau.
My point being, it always depends. You need to have enough intellect to know what you’re reading and to take information from more than one or two sources.
The same can be said about a lot of books and other materials. Wikipedia is very much not special in this regard.
Other works certainly can contain errors, but the fundamental difference with them is that the responsibility for the error can be ultimately tracked back to one single individual who stands to lose professionally by the damage to their reputation–namely, loss of their paycheck. There is no such cost associated with posting false info on Wikipedia, by anyone.
~
astro: Where does it say that? It isn’t in the page I’m viewing right now.
DougC: Kevin Trudeau is making a buttload of money off of his books despite what the FDA thinks of him. His paycheck is in no way related to the veracity of his claims, and neither is his reputation among the people who actually matter in his life.
It’s been changed on the current - but for any article, you can look at the history and see what changes have been made. So, for example, I can look at the 9:43 and 9:47 changes for 9/13 and see what was changed and how.
