The Usefulness of Wikipedia

[Maria de Luna]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

Rok and medusa said what I was thinking, but I have to say that as an academic standard, it's not.

[Luce]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

For whom? For the person making whatever claim and needing to look for evidence OF that claim, sure. They can use the source list, the links at the bottom, and try to find what they need in there. But Wikipedia, cited as the source of sources, behind whatever claim, then, is akin to making this whatever claim and supplying a library as a source, "Well, it's in there, somewhere. You'll have to hunt for it. But all my evidence should be right in there, just read it all. Remember to check the footnotes."

So, the debate/discussion is put on hold for whatever length of time it takes read through all of that material - unrelated and related, alike - to find the one fragment that supports that other person's claim? No. The person MAKING the claim is the one responsible for finding the information, the SOURCE, that SUPPORTS that claim.

My complaint is that people generally insist, apparently, that Wikipedia *is* that all-inclusive source. It isn't. The information found on that site is far too fluid and much too easily manipulated to be considered even remotely valid, on its own. This is why academia won't recognize it as a source - it is just simply too unreliable.

Usually I'm not using it for a debate. I'm either using it for general reading, or I'm using it to look for something obscure. It's a good first rock to roll over, but hardly the final answer.

Edit: In short, for me it is a source to find sources.

[ChainLightning]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

Usually I'm not using it for a debate. I'm either using it for general reading, or I'm using it to look for something obscure. It's a good first rock to roll over, but hardly the final answer.

Edit: In short, for me it is a source to find sources.

I think that pretty much sums up what a few others have said, in terms of a starting point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I mentioned, earlier, having Googled this guy - that had apparently killed his wife and two young daughters - and browsed Wiki, on the subject. It was enough to interest me, somewhat, so then I went looking much deeper, for more information. Beginning with a blatant error in the wiki article, itself, that was the piece (about DNA evidence that would supposedly exonerate the man) that initially intrigued me.

IIRC, what started me on the distraction/surf was something about Fort Bragg, NC. An ex-family member lived on-base there, in the '90s, and had told me of a certain tragedy that took place, on the base. I couldn't remember what it was. Found it, on wiki, and followed that trail to some archive, somewhere, that detailed the event. When I went back to the wiki tab, I then followed up on a tangent, hit a few more links, and then stumbled on the MacDonald story. Followed that up, just long enough to forget about the wiki error, and lost interest.


So, yeah. Absolutely. For curiosity, just to get a rough idea of whatever, or for a starting point, I think Wikipedia is rather convenient.

For someone wanting credible information (as in, for use in a debate and/or academic research) that they can cite, *most* people won't even bother with Wiki. Instead, they'll go to whatever journals, studies, court documents, whatever, themselves, to get at the valid source material, directly. At least, IMO, that's what any intellectual would do. They've already got a grasp of the topic they're working with and aren't very likely to even use a search engine, like Google, just to find a summary, somewhere. They want specific details or documents. Not a fickle Wiki piece that may or may not (depending on who's been doing the latest editing) describe *whatever it is*, accurately.


I.e.:

This thread was split off (thank you, Thal) from a topic, a discussion, where links, to wiki pages, were posted to back up supposed details on specific aspects of certain beliefs. To me, that goes against all logic. "Details. Of specific aspects. Of whatever belief system... Wikipedia? Seriously??" That is not a source.

On the other hand, for example, Rok created a thread, an informative introspect, and posted a Wiki-link to an article that may explain a little of what he was putting across. If people wanted more information, they'd go look for more information, not just settle for a [potentially haphazard] summary. That's a starting point.

My initial question, in the Opening Post, which was far more of a complaint[!!!] than a question, was specifically about the former use, not the latter.

[Luce]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

I think that pretty much sums up what a few others have said, in terms of a starting point.

Sorry, I'm really bad about that. I have very little time these days, and I can't really read entire threads. I do hope it's not too annoying.

[Historyforall]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

Correct info can be found as well. They have taken some steps but it will always be subject to question. As should any non primary source. Textbooks can be full of mistakes and often are. My daughters fourth grade history book incorrectly stated the last battle of the Civil war was in Tennessee.

Even a primary source can be skewed by emotion. In my history critical thinking class we read three accounts of the same action during the French-Indian war. A British officer, French officer and a British soldier. As one might think all three accounts of the same action were different. Question everything.

[ChainLightning]

Re: The Usefulness of Wikipedia

Sorry, I'm really bad about that. I have very little time these days, and I can't really read entire threads. I do hope it's not too annoying.

Oh no. Not at all. You're fine, Luce. Please don't take it that I was mocking you, or upset in some way, that you were saying what others have said. I was, more or less, just pointing to a consensus and it's one that I agree with, completely.