Sorry, Students: Jimmy Wales Agrees You Shouldn’t Cite Wikipedia in Term Papers: Agree?

Fef 2012/07/11 22:32:33
Related Topics: Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales
Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
Disagree, it's OK to cite Wikipedia.
Add Photos & Videos
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: 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.
wikipedia colbert fake

Read More: http://betabeat.com/2012/07/sorry-students-even-ji...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • sglmom 2012/07/12 03:56:17
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    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 ..

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Geenie ... RogerCo... 2012/07/13 00:48:09
    Geenie Nabottle
    Well according to *ahem* Wikipedia tertiary sources are defined as:

    A tertiary source is an index and/or textual condensation of primary and secondary sources.
    Some examples of tertiary sources are almanacs, guide books, survey articles, timelines, and user guides. Depending on the topic of research, a scholar may use a bibliography, dictionary, or encyclopedia as either a tertiary.
    As tertiary sources, encyclopedias and textbooks attempt to summarize and consolidate the source materials into an overview, but may also present subjective commentary and analysis (which are characteristics of a secondary source).
    In some academic disciplines the distinction between a secondary and tertiary source is relative,[4][3] but in historiography it is absolute.
    In the UNISIST model, a secondary source is a bibliography, whereas a tertiary source is a synthesis of primary sources.[5]
  • Jasmin 2012/07/12 15:16:30
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    its not a reliable source
  • RogerCo... Jasmin 2012/07/12 16:13:50
    Wikipedia is more reliable than Britannica.
  • Jasmin RogerCo... 2012/07/12 16:18:24
    i never said that was a reliable source
  • lolitalovely 2012/07/12 14:47:48
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    It's good to point you in the right direction, but Wikipedia is a public, ongoing encyclopedia subject to many biases and not so practical jokes. It's not solid.
  • RogerCo... lolital... 2012/07/12 16:14:34
    Yes. No reference is faultless.
  • lolital... RogerCo... 2012/07/12 21:14:21 (edited)
    Some are just more faultless than others.
  • Racefish 2012/07/12 14:46:51
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    it's too easy to edit by outside sources.
  • brunyon 2012/07/12 14:28:10
  • mich52 2012/07/12 14:04:19
  • Red Branch 2012/07/12 13:45:01
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Red Branch
    The guy is correct.
    Wiki can be used to find sources that you will need to check out for yourself and if they check out you can then use them source. Them refers to the sources not Wiki.
  • Kigan 2012/07/12 13:05:29
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Anyone can add or delete information on that website.

    Most instructors now will mention specifically that you are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source.
  • ScoobyDoobieDoo 2012/07/12 13:05:18
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Well, Wikipedia is actually around 98% accurate and fresher than most textbooks so although it's a useful resource (if you can tell the difference between fake and valid information, of course) I wouldn't openly mention that I'd been using it.
  • TheR 2012/07/12 12:18:09
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    And so Jimmy Wales admits his Wikipedia is a Garbage Site. I think the guy is missing a few marbles.
  • Rob Williams 2012/07/12 11:05:45
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Rob Williams
    The number of fake reports of celebrities dying (Phil Collins 'died' last week!) should indicate that not everything can be trusted.
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/07/12 10:43:21
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Christopher Kirchen
    People can put anything in Wikipedia, and any corrections might be wrong.
  • TKramar 2012/07/12 10:31:55
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    I can post something entirely untrue to Wikipedia. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's verified or vetted.

    Consider H. L. Mencken's history of the bathtub.
  • Alex 2012/07/12 10:02:58
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    It's a good starting point for collecting information, but nevertheless it isn't appropriate for any sort of bibliography or works cited page.
  • lisa 2012/07/12 08:52:11
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Most professors will not even allow you to cite Wikipedia.
  • RogerCo... lisa 2012/07/12 16:17:27
    Really? You got a scientific survey backing up that claim?
  • Michelle RogerCo... 2012/07/13 05:53:14
    Are you being sarcastic or trying to start a fight? Because you don't need a scientific survey to make a comment on an opinion website.
  • RogerCo... Michelle 2012/07/13 19:17:59
    So then you admit that you made that statement up.
  • Michelle RogerCo... 2012/07/13 21:58:00
    Err... I wasn't the person who made the statement. I was just replying because you were being a picky idiot.
  • lisa RogerCo... 2012/07/13 07:24:34
    I dont need one, I have professors who will not accept it so do you have one that doesn't!
  • BritPunk 2012/07/12 08:37:27
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Absolutely, it's not a reliable source. I would get seriously marked down for that.
    Wikipedia can be a good starting point, to get a general idea of a subject and get some references to follow up, but is not a reliable source in itself.
  • Cleaver62 2012/07/12 07:56:45
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    You just never know where the information came from. It could be valid but it might not be. Republicans have been known to scrub information from Wikipedia in their attempt to rewrite history. They have changed the Reagan legacy by rewriting his life and history, and they can do it to just about anything else, and i they can do it, anyone else can too.
  • Mikayla 2012/07/12 07:22:00
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    isn't that obvious? lol
  • Marcus Clark 2012/07/12 07:02:06
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Marcus Clark
    Wikipedia is not reliable. You would be better off citing a card file. If you want to use info found in Wikipedia, follow and verify the cited source, then cite that source. If there is no cited source on the page, do not consider the info to be valid.
  • BritPunk Marcus ... 2012/07/12 08:38:36
    Spot on,old bean.
  • RogerCo... Marcus ... 2012/07/12 16:18:20
    Good advice for ANY source, including Wikipedia.
  • burningsnowman 2012/07/12 06:58:20
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Who does that? Everyone knows you cite their references instead!
  • RogerCo... burning... 2012/07/12 16:19:17
    . . . Only if you have, in fact, actually read those references.
  • mizzSHADYgirl 2012/07/12 06:56:52
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
  • sally 2012/07/12 06:53:25
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Any dimwit who cites it deserves to be gien a failing grade. It's time for people to stop being lazy and look for primary sources.
  • Tee Quake 2012/07/12 06:37:44
    Disagree, it's OK to cite Wikipedia.
    Tee Quake
    Cite Wikipedia to your heart's content - at your peril. It is an incredibly convenient research tool with detailed citations throughout. A careful student will read Wikipedia but cite the citations (after double checking them first, of course). I mean, we got this impostor named Obama in the White House and you're worried about Wikipedia's validity? What about Obama's complete invalidity. Should students avoid quoting Obama because of his credibility gap? Wikipedia for president!
  • DPRKworker Tee Quake 2012/07/13 04:32:57
    Thanks for making something that has NOTHING to do with politics a political issue..
  • Inquisitve Kat 2012/07/12 06:35:35
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Inquisitve Kat
    If you find something useful on Wikipedia, do a bit of research and find a better source for that information. It can be a useful resource, but should never be a stopping (or reference) point.
  • L1 2012/07/12 06:32:42
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    I never do; I've found lots of errors in their references...
  • Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/12 06:32:24
    Agree, Wikipedia shouldn't be cited.
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Hell, I don't accept people slinging Wiki at me here or anywhere else and I'm no Professor. But, I'd rather Wiki be around than not - their sources OF those very articles are immensely helpful more often than not, especially the scientific ones dealing with Chemistry and Medicine in particular (IMO).
  • Roger47 2012/07/12 04:39:04
    Disagree, it's OK to cite Wikipedia.
    It is very reliable these days, and sometimes there is no other easy way to get the information.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.


2016/02/12 09:55:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals