arstechnica.com — References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system.
Sep 3, 2008 View in Crawl 4
nothlitSep 3, 2008
What your teachers ought to be saying is that you should never cite ANY encyclopedia, whether it is Wikipedia or Encarta or Britannica, as a primary source for research. Use them as jumping off points, like you said, and cite the original sources once you have confirmed them.
nothlitSep 3, 2008
wiki != wikipedia
Closed AccountSep 3, 2008
"should be" shouldn't be in parentheses. "wikipedia is an encyclopedia thats updated by the users with valid articles and sources"No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that's updated by the users with articles and sources that may or may not be valid. "its not perfect but any shortcomings are overcome by the vast user base who actually use and care about wikipedia as a revelant source of information."So at any given time, any article can be inaccurate.<a class="user" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 ...</a>"if not, then you should take it with a grain of salt or better yet, update it with a source or edit it out if its incorrect."Yes you should, which is why you don't use it as a reference."thats the way its SUPPOSED to be used."And I'm supposed to quit smoking and eat more vegetables. And the tenth amendment is supposed to be respected. The subject is people using it as a reference. Ifs, shoulds and suppositions don't make good science. And next time you accuse someone of being an idiot, try to write better than a fifth grader.
midtownerSep 3, 2008
You'd be very surprised, actually.I'm a law student and I use wikipedia frequently. There are excellent 'canned briefs' (summaries of cases) available on wikipedia. They are mostly accurate. While it's not something I'd use to write a paper or a brief, unless it was just a jumping off point so I could make sure I had my concepts straight, I think it's a valuable tool. The key is, as with anything on the internet, be aware that its value only as much as the anonymous author gave it. Be able to fact-check on your own and be able to tell what is bogus and what is not. Do that and it's a great tool.
joeanonSep 3, 2008
I don't agree with the idea that information is inherently wrong because it's on wikipedia.Wiki in general is the most convenient and up to date reference around. If you think that information from books is somehow magically correct because it was written by fewer people who need no qualifications other than a publishing contract... you're just another sucker.You should always question ALL reference. Calling wikipedia unreliable is like saying open source software is easier to hack because more people can read the source and/or change it.When in reality open source seems to actually be the most secure and wikipedia many times has the most accurate information. However, there is never a guarantee. What else are people supposed to do ? Rely on aged text books or corrupt government records ?All data is prone to mistakes and manipulation. Unless you have a direct link to God and even then he might lie to you just for fun. As they say the lord works in mysterious ways.
governmentsgunSep 3, 2008
There are methods people should use to evaluate the veracity of any information. Simply because something is on Wikipedia does not make it flawed. If you spot faulty information there, you congratulate yourself for your acumen, and correct it if you feel so inclined.Its format makes it a much better encyclopedia than the classic ones on paper. Those were much more difficult to correct at the source, and even when they were corrected, most people still held the old versions on their shelves for the next 15 years, if they even bothered to have encyclopedias in their home.
elliuotatarSep 3, 2008
Anyone can write a book about science that could be filled with factual errors, and there's no scientist who can take it upon himself to correct it like there are all over wikipedia. So how does that make books better sources of facts?The only real source you could trust would be peer reviewed journals. But you can't get access to those unless you pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees.