Here's one of the basic Definitions I learned ..
when I was first studying the Wikis ..
WIKI -- It is a WEBSITE where the users (meaning anyone) can add, delete, or revise content by using a web browser of their choice ..
When you reflect on this .. that ANYONE Can add, delete, Revise the content ..
when there's no SERIOUS Effort to even test the content posted to see if it can pass even the simplest 'smell' test to see if it can actually qualify as being .. well .. passable (or a passing acquaintance with reality, scientific methodology .. hmm .. even the word .. truth) ..
when it is no more than a BLOG That ALL Can put their spin (opinions) on ..
That is why most Professors (and I also do teach some even in my Retirement Years) state .. PLEASE .. do NOT use WIKIs for your Research Sources .. you will find your GRADE Accordingly lowered by using any WIKI as a substitute for REAL Research ..
Sorry, Students: Jimmy Wales Agrees You Shouldn’t Cite Wikipedia in Term Papers: Agree?
Fef
2012/07/11 22:32:33
|
|
|||||
|
258 votes
|
|
80% | ||
|
64 votes
|
|
20% | ||
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, said that university students should not cite entries in his tremendously popular reference website. Wales created Wikipedia in 2001, and the site has grown into one of the largest reference websites, attracting 470 million unique visitors monthly as of February 2012. Wikipedia allows anyone with internet access to write and edit entries in its free, online encyclopedia.
Mr. Wales stated:
Mr. Wales concluded, “Once you’ve read a few relevant Wikipedia entries on a topic, you should be well armed to start digging in to primary materials.”
Mr. Wales stated:
If the Professor has a more nuanced view that Wikipedia should not be cited “as a source” by university students then I agree completely! I think the same thing about citing Britannica or any other encyclopedia. Citing an encyclopedia for an academic paper at the University level is not appropriate – you aren’t 12 years old any more, it’s time to step up your game and do research in original sources.
Mr. Wales concluded, “Once you’ve read a few relevant Wikipedia entries on a topic, you should be well armed to start digging in to primary materials.”
Wikipedia does not have verification by any professional staff. Therefore, anyone can add untruthful data or references to any entry. Stephen Colbert used his television show on Comedy Central to start a campaign to alter entries on Wikipedia.
He explained that on Wikipedia "any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true." He also told his viewers to go onto Wikipedia, in the article elephants, and to edit it so that it would say: "Elephant population in Africa has tripled over the past six months." The suggestion resulted in numerous changes to Wikipedia articles related to elephants and Africa.
Read More: http://betabeat.com/2012/07/sorry-students-even-ji...
Top Opinion
-
sglmom 2012/07/12 03:56:17
Citing Wikipedia in place of those articles defeats the purpose of your paper. If your paper is just as empty as a website like Wikipedia, why should anyone read it to begin with?
If you rely upon it as your profligate source then that is wrong.
How about a dictionary or thesaurus? How much on-topic information can one wring out of those. I say let them quote for themselves and their sources be accorded whatever weight is arbitrarily given them by the professor. Where should one dig, Mr. Wales? Scientific studies have been shown to be tainted on occasion.
For instance, I looked up the information for the US Navy destroyer that my grandfather SERVED ON, the USS Wilkes. He told me everything there was to know about this particular ship. When I checked it out on Wikipedia, the info provided from the site was not even close to what my grandfather had told me.
According to Wikipedia, this ship was a GLEAVES-Class destroyer, but my grandfather, who, as I stated before, SERVED on it from Sept. 1944 to Jan. 1946 (He was a S 1/C), said that it was a FLETCHER-Class destroyer.
Needless to say, while I do enjoy some of the topics at Wikipedia, I trust my grandfathers FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE more than some website that can be changed, at any time, by its members.
My husband is in the Wiki files and it's ALL wrong. It's wrong becasue a news reported made an egregious error and they (Wiki) refused to acknowledge her mistake - through research and other factual sources.....blah blah blah.....if you research those allowed to make entry/changes you will see that they themselves are wingnuts! One of these wingnuts (and I mean NUTS) even told me that the source I provided to make the changes was not a reliable source.....so they have their own issues!
Some attack Wikipedia because anyone can edit it but the edits are followed up on because every edit is reported. They require source material to be included and you cannot imagine how many people attacking Wikipedia never look at the source material clearly listed which offers the more in depth information.
However, the fact Jimmy Wales didn't point out that Wiki does include more in depth source material is revealing about him that possibly he isn't as serious about Wiki as he claims as each year he runs a fund drive where he collects millions of dollars but he never justifies how he spends the money. People evaluating Wiki reveal his staff contributors are mostly volunteers and his servers don't even cost a fraction of a fraction of what he takes in. When totaled, even if he paid all his staff and owned all his servers, it wouldn't cost him even one million a year but he takes in between 20 to 30 million a year in his fund drives.
So if Jimmy Wales can't point out the value of Wiki as source material with links to more in depth source material on almost all Wiki links, then I would have to say he failed miserably to promote his website ...
Some attack Wikipedia because anyone can edit it but the edits are followed up on because every edit is reported. They require source material to be included and you cannot imagine how many people attacking Wikipedia never look at the source material clearly listed which offers the more in depth information.
However, the fact Jimmy Wales didn't point out that Wiki does include more in depth source material is revealing about him that possibly he isn't as serious about Wiki as he claims as each year he runs a fund drive where he collects millions of dollars but he never justifies how he spends the money. People evaluating Wiki reveal his staff contributors are mostly volunteers and his servers don't even cost a fraction of a fraction of what he takes in. When totaled, even if he paid all his staff and owned all his servers, it wouldn't cost him even one million a year but he takes in between 20 to 30 million a year in his fund drives.
So if Jimmy Wales can't point out the value of Wiki as source material with links to more in depth source material on almost all Wiki links, then I would have to say he failed miserably to promote his website for what it is.
I use Wiki often as a quick reference point not just to find the info on the Wiki page that was written, but to check out the source material which I often have difficulty finding on my own because sometimes keywords are difficult to find that will help in my search for information. Online encyclopedia's often don't include reference material links because they regard themselves as the authority on the information which often... you can't find what you're looking for 4 just that reason.
While some resources show the validity of information at Wiki is just as good as most encyclopedias, I still think they are just starting points.
Wikipedia helped me immensely in college. But it was never, ever a citation, a reference, or even the final say on any matter.
.
They're not allowed to 'cut & paste' and call it a job?
This generation will be screwed if the lights ever go out. They can't seem to find the john without their smart phones.
I just think professors hate the fact Wikipedia is so convenient. I understand where they're coming from, you want your students to do extensive research rather than go to an all-in-one handbook. Wikipedia promote procrastination and laziness, students who know Wikipedia has all the answers will just wait longer to do their paper and put less effort into it because of it.
However, the accusations that Wikipedia is inaccurate and fear because "anybody can edit it" is pure bunk and they know it. Most people who edit Wikipedia are actually professors and experts. Some even get paid to edit it.
I mean, seriously, how many of you edit Wikipedia? Exactly.
Anyway, I personally wouldn't cite Wikipedia. Seems like a copout.