According to Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is a free,[3] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 16 million articles (over 3.4 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.[4]
One of the main issues with Wikipedia is the debate over it's reliability: Accurate or not? What have been you experiences with the wiki? Have teachers warned you not to use it? Have you tried to write an entry or edit one? Where do you stand on the Britannia vs. Wiki debate>
I don't know if THIS is even accurate, but on the video we watched in class last time it talked about studies done that show that Wikipedia is as accurate as Brittanica. I haven't found clearly wrong information on Wikipedia, but most of what I've looked up is not worth double-checking, it's just for my personal interest. I was warned away from it once by a teacher, but other teachers haven't mentioned it, though I've used it as a source several times.
ReplyDeleteI've never tried to write an entry or edit one. And I never use Britannica. But that's mostly because Wikipedia is ALWAYS the first hit when I google something.
Nearly every teacher I've ever had has said not to use Wikipedia, but I think it is because teachers assume it's inaccurate and also because they like to make us go to the library. But I think in general Wikipedia is more accurate than other sources, especially because so many people are passionate about certain things.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the LDS page on wiki is really informative because so many Mormons and non-Mormons collaborated with pieces of info they have and not one source provided all the info.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the articles are copied and pasted from other, more recognized, sites and online encyclopedias. I've never had a personal encounter with information that is obviously incorrect, but I usually double check information I want to use with other sites, just to see if the information there is a general consensus as to its accuracy.
ReplyDeleteI'm another person who thinks that Wikipedia is, for the vast majority of articles, just as accurate as Brittanica. Not only because of the collaboration aspect, which seems to make it inevitable that mistakes will be caught and corrected with so many minds and eyes looking for them, but also because Wikipedia will have articles that are not found in Brittanica (and likely never will be. Wikipedia encompasses more areas, fields, interests, and individual people or events. That's the benefit of having an online source like Wikipedia. There is really no limit to the amount of information or number of articles... plus the fact that in many ways it's just so much more convenient to use.
ReplyDeleteI have never had a bad experience with Wikipedia, but I've definitely had teachers advise against it. I feel as though the information I get is reliable, maybe even more reliable than other encyclopedias in some ways because the people who write the articles actually care (most of the time). I've never tried to author or edit anything on Wiki.
ReplyDeleteI use Wikipedia all of the time as a first stop for info on a subject. More important than choosing the single most accurate information site, I believe, is investigating and researching the subject from multiple credible sources. This not only gives you more information but helps to ensure accuracy. I've never had a professor allow Wikipedia as a source for academic writing; however, they have allowed the Encyclopedia Britannica- pretty interesting considering the case study we just read about the two.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great question. When I started at BYU Wikipedia was taboo. No teachers would let you use it for papers, and even cautioned to stay away from it. Now I have had teachers you let me use it for papers, and will even use it themselves for hand outs and things like that. I think it is very reliable. I have never had any problems with it. I think it should be embraced and not shunned. One example, my brother worked for Church PR. They changed a fact about Joseph Smith on Wikipedia, it was fixed by a user within fifteen minutes. If you ask me, that is pretty good credibility.
ReplyDeletewant to make sure I answer all of the questions, sorry to post again! I've never edited a page. I feel that it is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannice (felt the readings supported this.) Wikipedia is fast, easy to use, and seems to cover EVERY subject. With the ability to make instant updates etc. I feel it's a more reliable source especially with more recent events etc.
ReplyDeleteI have never had an experience where wikipedia has given me incorrect information. I have heard from many professors to never use wiki on a research paper. I am not sure where I stand on that issue. I definitely think that it can be a useful tool to do background research, but why not extend it beyond there? Are professors just old-fashioned in only accepting sources which are published and peer-reviewed? In all reality, it seems like wikipedia might be the ultimate peer-reviewed source.
ReplyDeleteI think it's generally accurate, but I would never compare it to a dictionary because it's much different. I'm not sure it was intended to replace Britannica as much as it was to simply offer information about everything. Teacher's don't typically like us using it, but it's a great place to start because most stuff is cited and you can go from there.
ReplyDeleteI find Wikipedia helpful because it seems to collect and summarize all of the basic information I would have found after browsing through other websites. It makes basic research faster and easier. Most teachers ask us not to use it, but I think its handy dandy. As long as it is not your only source, I think it should be considered legit.
ReplyDeleteI like that Wikipedia can collaborate from different sides of an issue. Like anywhere else on the internet, this could turn into "flaming" but the checks and balances on the site are really good, and I think most of these are caught. I mostly use it for personal use, something easy I want to look up quick, but I don't think I'd try and use it for a paper, except as a beginning "taste" of the topic. I think there's a lot of merit to the site, but if you're writing something where your credibility is at stake, it'd be best to double check your info, whether you initially get it off the internet or the encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteI have found that most of the articles are some what accurate and if there is anything completely wrong people usually edit the information. I tried to be deceptive by putting incorrect information and it took about ten minutes for it to be corrected. Of course that's not the case with every article but I think most of its contributors are pretty vigilant. I have had a few teachers tell me to visit the website as a source (they usually laugh about it as they are telling the class) but it has been helpful.
ReplyDeleteI usually use Wikipedia not as a solid source in research because it can be edited by anyone. This means that there is a possibility that the pages written could or could not be accurate, could be biased, or unverified or backed by sources. I've found that it's a good guide to direct me to better sources if they're provided, or sometimes giving me information that I could research further. It's a quick guide to a better research, but it's not my sole source of information.
ReplyDeleteI have had teachers warn me against using Wikipedia as a work. I haven't tried to write or edit an entry, but I have seen an entry that had a random line at the end of a paragraph, I think it was "I like peanut butter." As far as I'm concerned, I think Britannia is more accurate and stable to use for research, but it's easily outdated from day to day. -Cambria
I find Wikipedia to be very reliable. I can see why the setup of Wikipedia is problematic. It is hard to filter so many different peoples thoughts. But i think Wikipedia has avoided the "information vomit" I see on a lot of other public websites. It seems that people filter what they are saying because they want to keep the reliability of the website in tact.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I dont take Wikipedia as fact. I usually use Wiki as a starting point for research or to validate random facts. When I am working on scholarly research, I use information found on Wiki as a catalyst to my search.
Let me tell you a story to illustrate how Wikipedia has affected and effected my life. One day, I was watching Robin Hood: Men in Tights, when Dave Chappell's character imitates Malcolm X to inspire Robin Hood's Merry Men. I thought to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder what Malcolm X was preachin'?" So I went to Wikipedia, and read a little bit. Then there was a link from that to some NWA lyrics, so I read a little more. And 3 hours later, I had learned about Malcolm X, NWA, Rage Against the Machine, some Shakespeare sonnets, the evolution of Cosmo the Cougar and countless other random, unessential tidbits.
ReplyDeleteI do this on a regular basis (minus the 3 hours). Is that a good thing? I have a lot of random facts in my head. Maybe I'll win Jeopardy one day.
I would say that I find Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. I would never quote it in a scholarly paper, but I use it every day to find information about people, places, organizations, etc. It's very easy to use.
ReplyDeleteI love Wikipedia!That said, do I trust everything on it? No. However, I have never had a bad experience yet and it has work wonders for me in my college career when I have had to have quick information.
ReplyDeleteI have had teachers warn me against Wikipedia, and I personally have never and probably will never use it in a research paper, but for good, fast, and probably most of the time reliable information, Wikipedia serves me well.
In one semester, I had a professor warn the class not to use Wikipedia because it is not a reliable source, and then I had another Professor highly advocate Wikipedia as a resource. I am of the opinion that it is great as a spring board for ideas and to lead to more reliable and scholarly works. I think both the Britanica and Wikipedia Encyclopias are great resources.
ReplyDeleteI would love to quote Wikipedia in a scholarly paper, just to stick it to the man.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I've been told by my teachers that it's unreliable. But that's not true at all. Everytime I read a book or a poem or am going to learn about something which my teachers will make complicated, I read about it first on Wikipedia. It's just so digestible, which in many ways makes it much better than a lecture in class. And it's so accessible, making it a better source for need-to-know knowledge than going through the rigmarole of searching Britannica or BYU's library. Blech...
-Neal
So far my Wiki experiences have been good. When I have used a Wiki for research I usually find the same information in separate sources. I have had teachers say the Wiki was useful, but that it never contained enough information to help a thesis for a research paper. As of today I have only been a reader of Wikis and not a producer. As concerning the whole Britannica vs. Wikipedia debate if both are equally accurate, I think the democracy/mob rule of the internet can decide which one deserves to stay.
ReplyDeleteI've been very strongly warned to NOT use Wikipedia as a source; HOWEVER, I use it as a jumping-off point There is a lot of reliability in the sources I find in the articles. I cite Wikipedia in my articles, but make sure that I have fulfilled my requirement of scholarly sources without Wikipedia's inclusion. You gotta take everything on Wiki with a grain of salt, but it is fairly reliable in my book. The greatest problem comes in the brevity or holes not allowing it to be so complete.
ReplyDeleteMy experience with Wikipedia has been a great one so far. Like we mentioned in class, I don't necessarily feel comfortable directly citing in papers and other research, but I do find that it is a great starting point for papers and research. But even more than that, I find that it is great for my everyday questions. Credibility aside, I have really enjoyed having such a great resource to familiarize myself with pretty much any topic I type into my Google search bar.
ReplyDeleteI once edited a web entry with one of my friends, Jordan Woods. This was in October of 2009, and the entry we put in was not edited out.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden_09#Wii_exclusive_features
I recognize that this is probably an outlier, and any information on wikipedia that appears suspect probably is, so I tend to take some entries on wikipedia with a grain of salt because of this reason.
Regarding sourcing, I think Wikipedia is a great place to FIND sources rather than a source in and of itself.