Petition To Make Wikipedia A Valid Resource For Papers

[Aajj333]

Writing papers would be much easier!

[Lost in the Echo]

Well I've never seen or heard of wikipedia being incorrect. They also seem to be very up-to-date with everything current. So honestly I see no reason it shouldn't be seen as a valid source. Wiki has always been reliable for me.

[tovaris]

NO
NO
NO
and yet again F****** NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I've never seen or heard of wikipedia being incorrect. They also seem to be very up-to-date with everything current. So honestly I see no reason it shouldn't be seen as a valid source. Wiki has always been reliable for me.

ANY OLD IDIOT CAN WRITE ANTHING ON IT!

Writing papers would be much easier!

why would you want to do that? its made by random idiots of the web that have nothing to do

[Miserabilia]

NO
NO
NO
and yet again F****** NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



ANY OLD IDIOT CAN WRITE ANTHING ON IT!



why would you want to do that? its made by random idiots of the web that have nothing to do


And then there are thousands of highly educated people on the subject that can check and correct this information every single day.
Wikipedia is very reliable, as long as you have other sources too.

why would you want to do that? its made by random idiots of the web that have nothing to do

It is made by experts on the subject and every one that has information on it, with all sources and information cited at the bottom of the page.

[StoppingTime]

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer that, to me, has no definitive right or wrong answer.

The majority of Wikipedia, at least from what I've seen of it, is either quite accurate, or seems to be quite accurate. This, however, is where we can run into problems. Sure, many articles of Wikipedia are sourced at the bottom with the information in the article linking to an article from another source. However, some of these articles have gaps - meaning that while most information is sourced, there are sentences here and there that have no source attached to them. They're generally a minority, but if you're planning on using Wiki as a source in a large research essay or something, I don't think it'd really work because of the fact that not everything in every article is accurately sourced. Now, if you're doing something on a smaller scale, or if you can somehow say that you only used Wikipedia's information for specific information from a specific, larger source, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed. I don't, however, think that every teacher should allow their students to use it for everything. That would be both impractical, and eventually cause information to be used that is either incorrectly cited, or just wrong altogether (as those outside sources can be wrong sometimes, too).

[tovaris]

And then there are thousands of highly educated people on the subject that can check and correct this information every single day.
Wikipedia is very reliable, as long as you have other sources too.



sure it is, i can go on it right now and write an article about a made up food substance, and noone will notice...



It is made by experts on the subject and every one that has information on it, with all sources and information cited at the bottom of the page.

yeah, you kepp telling yourself that while i go write some nonsence in it and cite a nonexisting source, or not even that

all it is good for is expanding ones knowlage brefely, but it is not a reliable source! Also you can find fotos you can use, but as a writen source it is useles

[Miserabilia]

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer that, to me, has no definitive right or wrong answer.

The majority of Wikipedia, at least from what I've seen of it, is either quite accurate, or seems to be quite accurate. This, however, is where we can run into problems. Sure, many articles of Wikipedia are sourced at the bottom with the information in the article linking to an article from another source. However, some of these articles have gaps - meaning that while most information is sourced, there are sentences here and there that have no source attached to them. They're generally a minority, but if you're planning on using Wiki as a source in a large research essay or something, I don't think it'd really work because of the fact that not everything in every article is accurately sourced. Now, if you're doing something on a smaller scale, or if you can somehow say that you only used Wikipedia's information for specific information from a specific, larger source, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed. I don't, however, think that every teacher should allow their students to use it for everything. That would be both impractical, and eventually cause information to be used that is either incorrectly cited, or just wrong altogether (as those outside sources can be wrong sometimes, too).

It's true that there are gaps.
It's true that it's not completely reliable;
it's not like a scientific journal where every single claim has to be cited carefuly:
but they are working on it.
There are constantly people checking citations and information,
which makes it atleast fairly reliable.

sure it is, i can go on it right now and write an article about a made up food substance, and noone will notice...



yeah, you kepp telling yourself that while i go write some nonsence in it and cite a nonexisting source, or not even that

all it is good for is expanding ones knowlage brefely, but it is not a reliable source! Also you can find fotos you can use, but as a writen source it is useles

sure it is, i can go on it right now and write an article about a made up food substance, and noone will notice...


Yes, they will.
Thousands of members can check every new article and it will be removed shortly.

yeah, you kepp telling yourself that while i go write some nonsence in it and cite a nonexisting source, or not even that


Which will be checked and eventualy removed if the citation is untrusted.

all it is good for is expanding ones knowlage brefely, but it is not a reliable source! Also you can find fotos you can use, but as a writen source it is useles

It's very useful to get a basic view on a subject,
and it provides many links to related subjects and studies.
It's not completely but still fairly reliable as source.

[Vlerchan]

... which makes it atleast fairly reliable.
And that's why Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a source in academic papers.

Another drawback is that it's impossible to identify the author and thus check for bias', etc.

[StoppingTime]

It's true that there are gaps.
It's true that it's not completely reliable;
it's not like a scientific journal where every single claim has to be cited carefuly:
but they are working on it.
There are constantly people checking citations and information,
which makes it atleast fairly reliable.




Yeah, it definitely is fairly reliable. While there are some professors that simply dismiss it outright because they think that everyone trolls it and simply makes things up, it wouldn't surprise me if there are others that simply want students to do more thorough and accurate research on the topic. Sure, if it's sourced correctly and you don't just write a paper based on what you read on Wikipedia, that's great, but allowing it completely would likely mean people wouldn't look far beyond it when researching.

[sqishy]

I'd say yes.

[Miserabilia]

Yeah, it definitely is fairly reliable. While there are some professors that simply dismiss it outright because they think that everyone trolls it and simply makes things up, it wouldn't surprise me if there are others that simply want students to do more thorough and accurate research on the topic. Sure, if it's sourced correctly and you don't just write a paper based on what you read on Wikipedia, that's great, but allowing it completely would likely mean people wouldn't look far beyond it when researching.

I aggree.
It's a good base, but I wouldn't use it as a source for my papers; I don't.


And that's why Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a source in academic papers.

Another drawback is that it's impossible to identify the author and thus check for bias', etc.

Yup.
And also, I just realized I voted yes to this.
Damnit how do I change my vote.

[Jean Poutine]

I'd rather use Wikipedia as a "source compendium" that gives me ideas about which actual sources to read and use, then where to direct my research. I'll admit I've used it in such a way when writing academic papers, but I don't see why that is problematic since I always read whatever source I intend to quote. However, I would not accept a Wikipedia article itself as valid source material.

Even if claims are cited in the articles, they are always open to "imaginative interpretation" and without reading the actual source material, there is no way to know whether or not a quote was distorted out of context. Just that means that Wikipedia articles should not be allowed as sources in and of themselves. Additionally, the sources cited may not adhere to a particular field's research material standard, since sources are not made equal and I think it's an important intellectual skill to discern between reliable and less reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia being such a "name-brand" and the article authors anonymous sheds a lot of doubt on the competence of people to edit the articles - while they might indeed be very competent, what matters is that it's impossible to prove, and in the case of non-cited claims, it's impossible to verify their validity. In the same line of thought, Wikipedia articles vary wildly by quality, thus citing Wikipedia is basically a hit or miss. Since Wikipedia is a collective whose members are anonymous, citing it offers no guarantee of quality that could be found in academic journals. This is why everybody assumes all Wikipedia articles are crap. They aren't, but one simply cannot put a lot of stock in a brand tarnished by some very, very low-quality articles, and without backup confirmation, one is forced to have reservations about the whole site perpetually, unless a more reputable source backs the site.

To me, Wikipedia is like the seller in a contract. You buy something from him, who buys this thing from a supplier. People like to cut the intermediary because its profit cut means things are more expensive. Wikipedia, as a repository, takes a cut of credibility instead, and leaves the buyer with less than he bargained for. In both cases, it's better to cut the middleman and go read the original sources themselves.

It's much better to read the sources on which the article is based then decide of their validity yourself.

As a side note, Wikipedia is virtually useless for law and there are few articles about it and the articles I've read do not seem very good or comprehensive. That such a popular field should be so underrepresented in quality and quantity in the favour of traditional legal review journals, when sources are paramount to the exercise of the profession says a lot about whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source.

I enjoy reading it much more than the average person (I read a lot of articles, every day, especially on my first love of linguistics which seem to me pretty accurate) but I take it with a grain of salt. When something makes no sense to me, I check another source for confirmation or go read the actual source, if any, to decide of its credibility. Since both methods employ the use of another source, why then source Wikipedia when you can just source whichever more reputable source you checked for confirmation in the WP article?

[tovaris]

It's true that there are gaps.


so why trust it?



It's true that it's not completely reliable;



so how can you cite it as a source than?


There are constantly people checking citations and information,
which makes it atleast fairly reliable.


sure there are




Yes, they will.
Thousands of members can check every new article and it will be removed shortly.


you want to bet? Ha? Ok lets make a wager ill make up a food called ifrokliž, you can check there is no such thing, ill make it a traditional sloven dish and even link to a document online that froves they are true, give me 7 dais for i am wery lazy


It's very useful to get a basic view on a subject,
and it provides many links to related subjects and studies.
It's not completely but still fairly reliable as source.

it is not a viable source to use in any serious pece of work! Its ful of nationalistic remarcs, flawed wievs of hiatory, untrue statements, poor gramer........
It is neither safe nor is it reliable

[Miserabilia]

so why trust it?

so how can you cite it as a source than?


sure there are




you want to bet? Ha? Ok lets make a wager ill make up a food called ifrokliž, you can check there is no such thing, ill make it a traditional sloven dish and even link to a document online that froves they are true, give me 7 dais for i am wery lazy



it is not a viable source to use in any serious pece of work! Its ful of nationalistic remarcs, flawed wievs of hiatory, untrue statements, poor gramer........
It is neither safe nor is it reliable

so why trust it?

so how can you cite it as a source than?

I am not saying you can trust it completely; but it's fairly reliable, because people check all the time, including many experts on the subjects, and users and who are volenteering and spending much time to make the site as reliable as possible.

I'm not saying you can cite it as a source, just defending that it's not the complete trash you're making it out of :P



you want to bet? Ha? Ok lets make a wager ill make up a food called ifrokliž, you can check there is no such thing, ill make it a traditional sloven dish and even link to a document online that froves they are true, give me 7 dais for i am wery lazy


You can make a fake cr*p page, it'll get deleted.
If not immediatly, it will be soon.
It will have to meet quality standards.
Even on much smaller wiki's like the creepy pasta wiki, new pages get checked all the time and deleted if they are bad.

it is not a viable source to use in any serious pece of work! [1] Its ful of nationalistic remarcs [2], flawed wievs of hiatory [3], untrue statements [4], poor gramer. [5].......
It is neither safe nor is it reliable

[1]: No ofcourse it's not; it's an encyclopedia, in any serious piece of work researched will be cited seperatly.

[2]: ???? show what you mean.

[3]: Such as? As far as I know wikipedia uses seirous sources on history, including many experts on history.
If you have better and more accurate information, you are welcomed to edit the page with a cited source to improve it's accuracy.

[4]: Then by all means edit it.
It's that simple.

[5]: Edit it to improve it.

[tovaris]

I am not saying you can trust it completely; but it's fairly reliable, because people check all the time, including many experts on the subjects, and users and who are volenteering and spending much time to make the site as reliable as possible.

I'm not saying you can cite it as a source, just defending that it's not the complete trash you're making it out of :P



You can make a fake cr*p page, it'll get deleted.
If not immediatly, it will be soon.
It will have to meet quality standards.
Even on much smaller wiki's like the creepy pasta wiki, new pages get checked all the time and deleted if they are bad.



[1]: No ofcourse it's not; it's an encyclopedia, in any serious piece of work researched will be cited seperatly.

[2]: ???? show what you mean.

[3]: Such as? As far as I know wikipedia uses seirous sources on history, including many experts on history.
If you have better and more accurate information, you are welcomed to edit the page with a cited source to improve it's accuracy.

[4]: Then by all means edit it.
It's that simple.

[5]: Edit it to improve it.

you kepp mentioning these all powerfull experts, but noone has ever seen one... I simply cant bleieve that someone who vorkes at the institut of Jožef Stefan has time or the willto check wikipedia

here you go nationalism and flawed wiews of history: hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatska_povijest,

[Miserabilia]

you kepp mentioning these all powerfull experts, but noone has ever seen one... I simply cant bleieve that someone who vorkes at the institut of Jožef Stefan has time or the willto check wikipedia

here you go nationalism and flawed wiews of history: hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatska_povijest,

you kepp mentioning these all powerfull experts, but noone has ever seen one... I simply cant bleieve that someone who vorkes at the institut of Jožef Stefan has time or the willto check wikipedia

I can give you a wikipedia article on this subject :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors

here you go nationalism and flawed wiews of history: hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatska_povijest,

Then edit the information that is flawed.
That's how simple wikipedia is. LIke you said yourself; anyone can edit it; therefore you should never complain about something being wrong on the site, because once you know it's wrong, you can simply correct it.

[Plasma]

Then edit the information that is flawed.


You just explained to yourself why it isn't credible. It's flawed. There really isn't any argument here.

[Miserabilia]

You just explained to yourself why it isn't credible. It's flawed. There really isn't any argument here.

Yes there is.
The argument is that once information on the website is flawed and you see that it's flawed YOU CAN CORRECT IT.
There are thousands of people and many experts on the subjects who check on ALL these pages, members take their time to check EVERY change made to see if it's correct and cited.

[Plasma]

Yes there is.
The argument is that once information on the website is flawed and you see that it's flawed YOU CAN CORRECT IT.
There are thousands of people and many experts on the subjects who check on ALL these pages, members take their time to check EVERY change made to see if it's correct and cited.

Why would you ever need to correct a credible source? You CAN pull up a page that has been messed with before the experts are able to fix it.

It sounds to me like you just want some huge website to give you the answers to everything out of pure laziness.

I'm not saying that I don't wish that I was able to use wikipedia on papers, I'm saying that there's a reason you're not supposed to, and I completely understand the reasoning.

[tovaris]

I can give you a wikipedia article on this subject :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors



Then edit the information that is flawed.
That's how simple wikipedia is. LIke you said yourself; anyone can edit it; therefore you should never complain about something being wrong on the site, because once you know it's wrong, you can simply correct it.

it is conplicated to edit
and i dont know enouth croatian to be able to edit it corevtly,
it sadens me that you believe that serious experts would go and do that
what sadens me even more is that they alowe such flaved vievs and even nationalistic remarcs

that is exactly why people shouldtn be abe to cite it as a source

[Miserabilia]

Why would you ever need to correct a credible source? You CAN pull up a page that has been messed with before the experts are able to fix it.

It sounds to me like you just want some huge website to give you the answers to everything out of pure laziness.

I'm not saying that I don't wish that I was able to use wikipedia on papers, I'm saying that there's a reason you're not supposed to, and I completely understand the reasoning.

Why would you ever need to correct a credible source? You CAN pull up a page that has been messed with before the experts are able to fix it.


I don't actualy support citing wikipedia or calling it a credible source.
I seriously accidentaly hitted the "yes" button,
and I onlt think it's a fairly reliable base for first information on a subject.
Like a dictionairy for things; just to know what it is, and not to get all specific information.

It sounds to me like you just want some huge website to give you the answers to everything out of pure laziness.

Then you are listening in the wrong way, bud.
You should reread my earlier post where i clearly state that I do not use wikipedia as source of information, and that I always use several independent sources.

I'm not saying that I don't wish that I was able to use wikipedia on papers, I'm saying that there's a reason you're not supposed to, and I completely understand the reasoning.

I do too, but I'm still defending the website itself;
the things said about it are often completely wrong.
It's actualy a great concept and it works just fine, the flaws that do exist are minor.

it is conplicated to edit
and i dont know enouth croatian to be able to edit it corevtly,
it sadens me that you believe that serious experts would go and do that
what sadens me even more is that they alowe such flaved vievs and even nationalistic remarcs

that is exactly why people shouldtn be abe to cite it as a source

it is conplicated to edit

No, it's not.
You literaly click "edit', and you get the text which you can then change or do whatever you want.
That's literaly ALL there is to it.

and i dont know enouth croatian to be able to edit it corevtly,
Ask someone that does,
do whatever; that's your problem then anyway, and if you are not pleased with the way the information is presented,
atleast try to get someone else to edit it.
Complaining here is far less effective then notifying someone on the discussion pages of wikipedia of the problem.

it sadens me that you believe that serious experts would go and do that
what sadens me even more is that they alowe such flaved vievs and even nationalistic remarcs

Fix it, report it, do something about it.
:)

that is exactly why people shouldtn be abe to cite it as a source
I aggree that they shouldn't.

[Plasma]

I don't actualy support citing wikipedia or calling it a credible source.
I seriously accidentaly hitted the "yes" button,
and I onlt think it's a fairly reliable base for first information on a subject.
Like a dictionairy for things; just to know what it is, and not to get all specific information.



Then you are listening in the wrong way, bud.
You should reread my earlier post where i clearly state that I do not use wikipedia as source of information, and that I always use several independent sources.



I do too, but I'm still defending the website itself;
the things said about it are often completely wrong.
It's actualy a great concept and it works just fine, the flaws that do exist are minor.
A site must be credible to use on a research paper. End of story. Wikipedia isn't credible because it has flaws. There's nothing saying you can't learn from the website though...

If you always use other sources, why are you trying to argue this point?

It sure is a great concept. I love wikipedia. I never said I didn't. You admit to it having flaws, though, and that's the problem. At this point you're just grasping for anything to keep you afloat...

[Cygnus]

There are two tabs at the end of any Wikipedia article titled "References" and "Further Reading", which lead to things like books or scholarly articles. Those exist because those pieces of information in those tabs are the reliable sources instead of the Wikipedia article itself. So no, Wikipedia shouldn't be a valid source.

[Miserabilia]

A site must be credible to use on a research paper. End of story. Wikipedia isn't credible because it has flaws. There's nothing saying you can't learn from the website though...

If you always use other sources, why are you trying to argue this point?

It sure is a great concept. I love wikipedia. I never said I didn't. You admit to it having flaws, though, and that's the problem. At this point you're just grasping for anything to keep you afloat...

A site must be credible to use on a research paper. End of story. Wikipedia isn't credible because it has flaws. There's nothing saying you can't learn from the website though...

And I aggree completely that it isn't credible
,and that you can't cite it on a research paper.


If you always use other sources, why are you trying to argue this point?

Because there are lies and misconceptions being told here about the site and I am trying to correc them.

It sure is a great concept. I love wikipedia. I never said I didn't. You admit to it having flaws, though, and that's the problem. At this point you're just grasping for anything to keep you afloat...

That doesn't even make any sense.
I never said it was perfected, I always beleived it has flaws.
I'm still by my original standpoint,
I am just defending the website, not that it can be cited.
Please try to read my post more carefuly, including previous posts,
before making a statement about my standpoints.

[Plasma]

And I aggree completely that it isn't credible
,and that you can't cite it on a research paper.



Because there are lies and misconceptions being told here about the site and I am trying to correc them.



That doesn't even make any sense.
I never said it was perfected, I always beleived it has flaws.
I'm still by my original standpoint,
I am just defending the website, not that it can be cited.
Please try to read my post more carefuly, including previous posts,
before making a statement about my standpoints.
Your thread is titled "petition to make wikipedia a valid resource for papers"

That is your original standpoint. And it shouldn't be a valid resource.

[Miserabilia]

Your thread is titled "petition to make wikipedia a valid resource for papers"

That is your original standpoint. And it shouldn't be a valid resource.

Your thread is titled "petition to make wikipedia a valid resource for papers"


1: It's not my thread
2: The title was simply stating what the petition was about. OP was being completely obejective.

Once again, please read.
Read carefuly, to avoid misunderstandings like this and waste time on this useles argument which is now over :P

[tovaris]

I don't actualy support citing wikipedia or calling it a credible source.
I seriously accidentaly hitted the "yes" button,
and I onlt think it's a fairly reliable base for first information on a subject.
Like a dictionairy for things; just to know what it is, and not to get all specific information.



Then you are listening in the wrong way, bud.
You should reread my earlier post where i clearly state that I do not use wikipedia as source of information, and that I always use several independent sources.



I do too, but I'm still defending the website itself;
the things said about it are often completely wrong.
It's actualy a great concept and it works just fine, the flaws that do exist are minor.





No, it's not.
You literaly click "edit', and you get the text which you can then change or do whatever you want.
That's literaly ALL there is to it.


Ask someone that does,
do whatever; that's your problem then anyway, and if you are not pleased with the way the information is presented,
atleast try to get someone else to edit it.
Complaining here is far less effective then notifying someone on the discussion pages of wikipedia of the problem.



Fix it, report it, do something about it.
:)


I aggree that they shouldn't.

there is a discusion page of wikipedia? I didnt know taht...because i dont care, i keep away from it dont use it... To me it is trash and will remain trash, i newer was an anarhist and will not be one now.... There is simply no way wikipedia couls ever be considered a reliable source, you are better off asking a random person on the streat for that information.

[Miserabilia]

there is a discusion page of wikipedia? I didnt know taht...because i dont care, i keep away from it dont use it... To me it is trash and will remain trash, i newer was an anarhist and will not be one now.... There is simply no way wikipedia couls ever be considered a reliable source, you are better off asking a random person on the streat for that information.

there is a discusion page of wikipedia? I didnt know taht

Wikipedia is more than just encylcopedic;
there is a large community of users who can discuss whatever topics should be edited, etc.

To me it is trash and will remain trash
It's truly a shame you feel about it that way.

There is simply no way wikipedia couls ever be considered a reliable source,
It's fairly reliable,
but not to be cited in a paper.

[tovaris]

Wikipedia is more than just encylcopedic;
there is a large community of users who can discuss whatever topics should be edited, etc.


It's truly a shame you feel about it that way.


It's fairly reliable,
but not to be cited in a paper.

therefore it is not reliable, no more tham my neighbour...

[Miserabilia]

therefore it is not reliable, no more tham my neighbour...

That's just not true,
and I've already explained why.
It is reliable for a fair amount,
as thousands of members and hunderds of experts on each subject check the pages and corrrect what there is to be corrected.
I doubt your neighbour has the collective knowledge of all encyclopedia's and many researchers and scientistis on all subjects.

[tovaris]

That's just not true,
and I've already explained why.
It is reliable for a fair amount,
as thousands of members and hunderds of experts on each subject check the pages and corrrect what there is to be corrected.
I doubt your neighbour has the collective knowledge of all encyclopedia's and many researchers and scientistis on all subjects.

i stil fail to find a single scientist from say institute of Jožef Stefan to go and corect wikipedia, or a serious doctor...

[Miserabilia]

i stil fail to find a single scientist from say institute of Jožef Stefan to go and corect wikipedia, or a serious doctor...

Many doctors and medical experts correct and use wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_guide_for_medical_editors

[tovaris]

Many doctors and medical experts correct and use wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_guide_for_medical_editors

yeah i knoe, a friend of my went to a doctor for some rash and the idiot didnt know whaz it was so she (the doc) simply googled it and found the diagnosis on the internet,
i dont oay my taxes si that doctors can find answers on wikipedia, i pay my taxes so that they will know the answer or at leest have a reliable book to look up desezes...

[Miserabilia]

yeah i knoe, a friend of my went to a doctor for some rash and the idiot didnt know whaz it was so she (the doc) simply googled it and found the diagnosis on the internet,
i dont oay my taxes si that doctors can find answers on wikipedia, i pay my taxes so that they will know the answer or at leest have a reliable book to look up desezes...

Amusing but irrelevant anecdote

[tovaris]

Amusing but irrelevant anecdote

if wikipedia is so great use it to tell me what zaseka is

[Miserabilia]

if wikipedia is so great use it to tell me what zaseka is

Bacon jam, from what I've seen.
" It is made through a process of slow cooking the bacon, along with onions, vinegar, brown sugar and spices, before mixing in a food processor."

But I have the distinct feeling of you trying to lure me into a trap and you actualy meant a DIFFERENT zaseka, or something.
Anyway, if you are gonig to reply with either that or that the information given about zaseka is wrong;
i highely encourage you to edit it.