What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
152 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48@Firemeboy
"If your professor docks your paper, send them to me. I'll straighten them out."
I'll remember that. 'But professor, this guy on an online website (Digg, no less!) said it was ok!' - bhowell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
- cal01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31@Firemeboy: The reason why Wikipedia is not acceptable as an academic reference is because it's generally not considered to be an academic resource and has little to no authority as to what it is saying. The same goes with anything in the academic world; you'd just as easily get slammed by your professor for using a book written by some hack or a non-peer reviewed journal. Some professors don't even allow encyclopedias to be referenced, either.
- yish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27"what do you mean not a credible source? it has 300 diggs for crying out loud!"
- Firemeboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33Basing your entire argument on one source should be looked down upon. But if you find something on Wikipedia that is corroborated in other places, then feel free to quote Wikipedia. If your professor docks your paper, send them to me. I'll straighten them out.
- rej1587, on 10/12/2007, -14/+36This seems handy, but Wikipedia users isn't always trusted. I'd never try and cite a Wikipedia article for a paper since most teachers and professors understand how Wikipedia works.
- timpkmn89, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26This has been on Wikipedia for quite a while now...
- andrewcool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23its been on wikipedia for like a long time now.
- dotdan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I've had the same issue. However, it says a lot for Wikipedia when professors start explicitly stating whether it is/isn't allowed as a reference.
- khiddy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21In academic circles it certainly doesn't cut it as a source. It may work on old ladies at the bridge game, however.
They prefer the MLA format. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I always thought citing information on Wikipedia was frowned upon and discouraged.
- neilscool11, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17this feature is old
- Crazyiodudo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Many academic institutions discourage their students from citing Wikipedia. Many schools do not consider it reliable.
If you want to attempt to use the information on it, check the bottom of the page for the sources. - incongruity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ addicted44:
The citation feature for wikipedia gives a date and version number for the page. Either/both of those things make it absolute with regards to what the source was when you referenced it and no subsequent change can alter that. So yes, it is static at least for the purposes of academic reference. - VMark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10No peer review = don't use as a source
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, most college profs won't take Encyclopedias as reference, and using Wikipedia will just piss them off. Use Wikipedia as a point from which to find more information, but don't use it as a reference in the paper. There's a reason Wiki itself cites things. Citing wikipedia is kind of like citing your friend down the street who's knowledgable on a subject. It may be right, but it has no authority.
- Billdozer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9ditto on that. I've always hesitated to use them as a source.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For what it's worth, by the time you get to college, you shouldn't be citing encyclopedias at all as references, really. You should be seeking out primary sources wherever possible. So it's not so much whether Wiki is credible - it's simply not the sort of reference one should be using in college. High school maybe.
- mmxtreme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Huh , they've had this feature for many many months now ! I've used it for one of my paper in the winter.
- JeremyBanks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This feature has been there for months at least, this isn't new at all.
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's been around forever. I used it at the beginning of the school year last September, and it was around even before that I believe. It's in no way a "new" feature.
- bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think this has been around for a while...but I might be wrong.
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It is old. I've been using it for years. I'm flagging this story as inaccurate.
- saralk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"(they are cited in a group at the end, rather than each point having its relevant source cited there)"
They do that, they have a footnote mark, clicking on it takes you to that reference. It would be unreadable if the citations were put in brackets each time they were used. - kourge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Exactly. This feature existed at leasted 2 months ago.
- DJcrayon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Didn't the guy that created wikipedia criticize college student saying "you don't cite an encyclopedia!"?
- arwcheek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would have tagged this story with "this is old news" but I don't see it as an option anymore. did it get lost in the redesign?
- mhl12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4how is this a new feature???
I've been using this since the first time I went to wikipedia! - MerlynXLII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Agreed, I used this on a paper last semester in March or so. Hardly a new feature.
- spectrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The university that I attend has a policy against using Wikipedia in papers. Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT resource for information, as it aggregates a ton of information and more often than not lists links to resources that can be cited. The somewhat ironic thing is that most schools want you to cite peer reviewed articles from journals or whatnot, but Wikipedia is probably the most peer reviewed source of information, as it is peer reviewed (and edited) by millions of people. It just happens that many of those people have a political agenda or have improper information. The Onion has the best humor in regards to this whole situation:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 - Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8My daughter & her classmates use wikipedia extensively and are encouraged to do so. She has even sent a mail to a maintainer to clarify an article (not bad for a 5th grader).
Of course they are not permitted to use a single source and don't usually use wikipedia as a primary... but if a 5th grade girl can manage, I have to believe that the university students doing so are lazy and the people decrying wikipedia are reactionaries... they really need to lighten up. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's the way it should be. The whole point of using sources is that it's about building your argument on solid foundations and about learning what is and isn't a solid foundation. Wikipedia is third hand information (original witnesses -> official record -> Wikipedia) at best, and that's not a good foundation on which to build an argument.
- twitndiggfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Old, been there since I've started using Wikipedia a couple years ago
- Gurubanks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My professors don't want wikipedia citing, but that goes without saying. Its not even a matter of it being open-source. The fact that its an encyclopedia is enough to make it a sub-par reference (especially for college-level work). I've been taught since high school to use encyclopedia's sparingly. They're good for quick reference, not research.
- jonshipman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6All my professors never take internet sources regardless.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Anyone who actually understands how Wikipedia works knows that every single edit to a page is viewed by hundereds of people, and most vandalism and inaccuracies are rolled back within 2 minutes of their occurance. People are just reluctant to trust Wikipedia, becuase it is free, and most people are used to paying for their information.
Wikipedia > Encyclopedia Brittanica - CydeWeys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How did this get Dugg?! This feature has been around for a long while, over a year at least. I'm a Wikipedia administrator ... frankly, I'm a bit shocked to see this touted as a "new feature". Geez.
- Dracker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Gurubanks
"It has thousands of people reading it, but they're almost never as well-versed in the subject as the few scholars that read academic journal articles."
That's exactly the POINT! When I write a paper, I want it to be clear and easy to understand, even to someone not versed in the subject! - hellecol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If i use wikipedia as a source at my university, i get a zero on the paper. period.
- outhouseinput, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What wikipedia could do is have a specific versions of a document that have been accredited by creditable people.
For example, lots of medical articles on wikipedia are extremely screwed up, written by people who don't even have MDs.
But, what if we make a system so that a doctor, for example, could edit and save as a 'creditable' version that only other doctors can edit, outside the general realm of wikipedia?
It would kind of create little intellectual havens for intelligent people, because keep in mind that most people don't even contribute, they just read; for them its not like their rights would be violated or anything of that nature. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is old news.
- bacirriu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The trick is to download a wikipedia backup or write a wikipedia bot then post it online, then you can cite wikipedia with a totally different URL. Such as localhost :D
- paulgreber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, this is nothing new.
- chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Peer review means reviewed by EXPERTS, you know, people with PhDs and stuff, not some 12 year old in Kansas.
See, there's these things called Libraries. Colleges have them. Even High schools do. I hear there are public ones as well. And they all have web pages which link to hundreds of thousands of sources. Part of your college tuition goes to pay for these journals and electronic databases - use them. Even public libraries have free access to many journals to anyone with a library card. I know it may take an additional 30 seconds or so to find a source vs. Wikipedia, but it'll be worth it. At the very least, try Google Scholar. - Gurubanks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Also, to put things into perspective: today's featured article is Bulbasaur...
I choose YOU open-source encyclopedia. - elfguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I used to be a big proponent of Wikipedia. I've done over 3000 edits over a year. But now I never go there anymore and recommend to people that they don't either. That's after seeing how biased, and thick headed some of the admins are. There are articles which are locked into a particular view point, and any new editor that comes in to make any change is reverted and ridiculed right away. Regardless if you agree with the view point or not, that's just bad and leads to very misleading articles, which appear very legit, and that is a dangerous thing.
- kurple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What this means is that you dont cite the Wikipedia article, obviously. You cite using the links form where they got the information. WIkipedia is the gateway.
- vondruska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Since I've been using Wikipedia the Cite This Article has been there. I've used it a few times as well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4according to Wikipedia:Academic_use,
"An encyclopedia is great for checking little details. Little details may be: ... A very obscure point, such as the names of the founders of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party. This may be almost impossible to find anywhere other than Wikipedia, unless you read Armenian, which you probably don't, or are prepared to spend an hour in the library, which you probably don't want to. In this case, you may be forced to rely on--and to cite--Wikipedia. Good luck: you're probably safe." - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yup, I was thinking that too
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is