Using Wikipedia As A Source

[Jet Gorgon]

Who uses this site to source info?

Any media/biz I work for bans any source references from this site. Why? Because anybody and his dog with a logon can post information on this site. Many of the notes on Wiki are posted by wannabee history buffs or music fans or whoever that do not always have the correct data or info.

It is an interesting website, but the info is not always true. Often the writings are mere recollections or wishful thinkings of the contributor.

Just a heads up. Which will likely follow with a stream of "off with Jet's head" wiki wonkers. K I just posted the info. I am the messenger...

[PhilHarries]

Intersting, I was searching for some info last week and ended up at Wikipedia. Apart from the website itself there was a lot of listings concerned with the accuracy, or lack of it, of the info within WP. Oh well we live and learn.

[cdnvic]

The open method of collecting data is wikipedia's strength and it's weakness. While it is open to abuse, it's also being scrutinized by many.

Trouble is the info in it is fluid and always changing so quoting it is almost useless.

I think the popular subjects are pretty accurate as they are scrutinized in more detail (more eyes watching), but the more obscure the topic, the more likely it is that BS can be injected without being caught.

Several years ago someone did an article on Picadilly Circus, with photos of clowns, elephants and the phone number for the ticket office being his mate's pub.

Like any source, Wiki or Britannica, I always look for corroberating sources.

[Grover]

Off topic: I think Thai Visa should have a wiki for the latest visa information and other useful info about Thailand.

[meadish_sweetball]

Who uses this site to source info?

Any media/biz I work for bans any source references from this site. Why? Because anybody and his dog with a logon can post information on this site. Many of the notes on Wiki are posted by wannabee history buffs or music fans or whoever that do not always have the correct data or info.

It is an interesting website, but the info is not always true. Often the writings are mere recollections or wishful thinkings of the contributor.

Just a heads up. Which will likely follow with a stream of "off with Jet's head" wiki wonkers. K I just posted the info. I am the messenger...

For anyone using the Internet, source checking is essential. Wikipedia is a good starting point for info, as long as you are aware of its limitations. If you need info material for making important decisions, or for texts to be published, obviously it will not be good enough.

But Wikipedia provides reasonably correct background knowledge on a lot of subjects. Obviously it is more likely to contain incorrect information than many other sources, but good enough for quoting as a basic reference on a web forum discussion about non-crucial matters... imo. Most wiki articles on the subjects I took at uni contain the same information as the course books. In such cases, when I have already read the same thing in university course books, I dont have any qualms about linking to it.

[The Dan Sai Kid]

I think that Wiki is a good place to start when looking for info about something.

[garro]

I agree that Wikipedia is a good source for getting background information. I recently used as part of my literature review for a research proposal. I would never quote it though. It often has links to more reliable sources which I have quoted.

[moonoi]

I wouldn't quote or reference anything from wikipedia.

All those wikifiddlers are like members of a cult, if you critise there wonderful font of knowledge then prepare to be flamed!

Even the founders of the site recommended students not to refer or use information from the site. Now if they are saying that the information can't be trusted then I think its a very good reason to stay away from it.

Couple of links to articles about what I just mentioned:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wi...uality_problem/

the founder admits theres a quality problem and the idea of wiki doesn't work quite as it should

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sa...orks_wikipedia/

(cofounder of wikipedia starts a new one because ""humanity can do better" than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's shortcomings today are probably unsolvable)

[GuestHouse]

I think that Wiki is a good place to start when looking for info about something.

I agree with this, but I think the crux of taking information from anywhere is to be understand traceability to source data.

Sadly this very critical [pun intended] part of education is not given the importance I believe it deserves, more so with the modern age of online data.

I'm a great believer in the importance of teaching research method, something that is at the heart of good teaching and is perhaps most often taught in the teaching of History.

As an example that many Brits will recognize.

I recently attended a lecture on the writings of Sutonious (He wrote biographies of Julius Caesar and the early Roman Emperors). Among other things I learned in this lecture and by going right to the source material was that the words attributed to Julius Caesar on his arrival in Briton and that which every British Schoolboy is taught as fact "Veni, Vidi, Vici 'I Came I Saw I Conquered'" were in fact not spoken in Briton but where written on banners in Caesar’s victory parade.

Generations of British school children taught a "fact" that is utter <deleted>.

I note here that in this case Wiki has it right.

Edited February 20, 2007 by GuestHouse

[sceadugenga]

Wasn't taught anything of the sort when I was at school. The quote was made after a battle/campaign that had nothing to with Britain. It was the message he sent to the Senate after his victory. Veni vidi vici.

[Totster]

Must've missed that class..

totster

[meadish_sweetball]

I think that Wiki is a good place to start when looking for info about something.

I agree with this, but I think the crux of taking information from anywhere is to be understand traceability to source data.

Sadly this very critical [pun intended] part of education is not given the importance I believe it deserves, more so with the modern age of online data.

What country and/or circumstances do you base this on?

It was always stressed throughout my education, starting from around age 16 which was when our teachers started to demand source lists for every project, that source checking and the contrasting of sources were essential procedures in research. Here we're talking Swedish government schools, not even private schools. In my experience, everyone around my age who has attended university and obtained a degree are equally aware of this. Otherwise their papers and theses would not have been accepted.

[PeaceBlondie]

Even at age 16 to 18, in one of the best public (state) schools in the USA, if we wrote a serious research paper, it had to not only contain footnotes, but those notes had to be in the style required at university. That included the order (Whitworth & Sturdevant, Torque Wrench Manufacture in Illinois, 1953, Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 114-115).

On wiki (which has been called "Wicked-Pedia"), sometimes citations are missing, or inaccurate.

[cdnvic]

Even at age 16 to 18, in one of the best public (state) schools in the USA, if we wrote a serious research paper, it had to not only contain footnotes, but those notes had to be in the style required at university. That included the order (Whitworth & Sturdevant, Torque Wrench Manufacture in Illinois, 1953, Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 114-115).

On wiki (which has been called "Wicked-Pedia"), sometimes citations are missing, or inaccurate.

Did you eventually get your masters in wrenchology (UK: Spanneristics) or did you lose interest after year 3 as many do?

[toptuan]

At the university level in Thailand (at least in our area), students/faculty are banned from using Wiki as an authoritative source. Somewhat ironic in a school system where virtually everything else is copied/pirated (textbooks, CD's, graduate papers, etc.) with wild abandon and without attribution.

That being said, here's a few interesting statistics from TimeAsia (Feb. 12, 2007):

NUMBERS

100

Minimum number of U.S. judicial rulings that have cited the collaborative online encyclopedia Wikipedia since 2004.

13

Number of times that circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court, have cited Wikipedia.

*************************************

OK, perennial USA-bashers on ThaiVisa, the door has been thrown wide open, once again! I can hear it comin'

Edited February 20, 2007 by toptuan

[yeti]

Well, for science articles, Wikipedia doesn't seem that bad, even a bit better than Britannica:

Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.

[kayo]

I agree with the general thread here..

Good source for initial research/background info. also great for album chronologies when your music collection has not been updated for years, as each artists has their own chronology listing as well as relevant art work for different editions of their albums.

Also wanted to mention that many wiki bashers are those who visited it in early days.

Nowadays it is much better frequented and hence much more control on content. Leading, indeed to even the US superior courts to use them as sources for rulings.

Nonetheless, we all know and hate the US legal system.

[Remo]

At the university level in Thailand (at least in our area), students/faculty are banned from using Wiki as an authoritative source.

Well that applies to many Universitys in the US as well, there have many tests done to compare the validity

of Wiki results to Encyclopaedia Britannica and the results have always said they are comparable

Wiki is a starting point and the benefits are it provides additional links on subjects to sources which would be considered

authoritative, reports, journals etc..

Wiki is not the free for all anymore (I miss those days) that anyone can change anything they want y, the "people power" has faded a lot

as they were getting spammed to bits as getting a link to your site from Wiki meant a lot to online marketers

They have around 1500 full time volunteers who are pretty zealous about spotting what changes have been made

so do changes get made which are unreliable - yup! how quickly are they fixed, now pretty quickly. A lot of topics are now locked from editing

In my opinion its a good starting to understand something and will help you find sources/research/journals etc... so will help put you on the right track

Any student that quotes "Encyclopaedia Britannica" should be treated the same way, much as the Discovery channel has well researched work how credible would it be to quote that as a source

Not that it should be regarded an authoritative source but the results have vastly improved. But you have to remember if the founders werent feeling guilty about there online porn days we would have no Wiki

I love the internet it always comes back to porn if even a charitable foundation

Edited February 20, 2007 by Remo

[Jet Gorgon]

Thanks. Some valid points here. Wiki must be doing something right, as it usually comes up on the first page when I'm looking for something. If it now contains links to credible sources, that is commendable. US judicial system source? Based on some of its rulings, I would imagine some judges went with whatever their fortune cookies said.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Jet Gorgon

[Fred Sanford]

Oh man, I worship Wikipedia. I use it all the time. I don't know where I'd be without it. I might make it my home page. Great site and great info on everything. I don't care what the bashers say, this is one of my very favorite sites of all time if not the favorite

[moonoi]

Well, for science articles, Wikipedia doesn't seem that bad, even a bit better than Britannica:

Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.

That is until you understand that Nature magazine faked the results

Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study

Britannica hits back at junk science

By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco

Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let its Wikipedia fetish get the better of its responsibilities to reporting science. The Encyclopedia Britannica has published a devastating response to Nature's December comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, and accuses the journal of misrepresenting its own evidence.

Where the evidence didn't fit, says Britannica, Nature's news team just made it up. Britannica has called on the journal to repudiate the report, which was put together by its news team.

Independent experts were sent 50 unattributed articles from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia's 162.

But Nature sent only misleading fragments of some Britannica articles to the reviewers, sent extracts of the children's version and Britannica's "book of the year" to others, and in one case, simply stitched together bits from different articles and inserted its own material, passing it off as a single Britannica entry.

Nice "Mash-Up" - but bad science.

"Almost everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading," says Britannica.

"Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit."

In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was criticized for containing omissions.

A pattern also emerges which raises questions about the choice of the domain experts picked by Nature's journalists.

Several got their facts wrong, and in many other cases, simply offered differences of opinion.

"Dozens of the so-called inaccuracies they attributed to us were nothing of the kind; they were the result of reviewers expressing opinions that differed from ours about what should be included in an encyclopedia article. In these cases Britannica's coverage was actually sound."

Nature only published a summary of the errors its experts found some time after the initial story, and has yet to disclose all the reviewer's notes.

So how could a respected science publication make such a grave series of errors?

When Nature published the news story in December, it followed weeks of bad publicity for Wikipedia, and was a gift for the project's beleaguered supporters.

In October, a co-founder had agreed that several entries were "horrific crap". A former newspaper editor and Kennedy aide John Siegenthaler Snr. then wrote an article explaining how libellous modifications had lain unchecked for months. By early December, Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales was becoming a regular feature on CNN cable news, explaining away the site's deficiencies.

"Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great," wrote news editor Jim Giles.

Nature accompanied this favorable news report with a cheerful, spin-heavy editorial that owed more to an evangelical recruitment drive than it did a rational analysis of empirical evidence. It urged readers to "push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia."

(Former Britannica editor Robert McHenry dubbed Wikipedia the "Faith based encyclopedia", and the project certainly reflects the religious zeal of some of its keenest supporters. Regular Register readers will be familiar with the rhetoric. See "Wikipedia 'to make universities obsolete').

Hundreds of publications pounced on the Nature story, and echoed the spin that Wikipedia was as good as Britannica - downplaying or omitting to mention the quality gap. The press loves an upbeat story, and what can be more uplifting than the utopian idea that we're all experts - at whatever subject we choose?

The journal didn't, however, disclose the evidence for these conclusions until some days later, when journalists had retired for their annual Christmas holiday break.

And this evidence raised troubling questions, as Nicholas Carr noted last month. Many publications had assumed Nature's Wikipedia story was objectively reporting the work of scientists - Nature's staple - rather than a news report assembled by journalists pretending to be scientists.

And now we know it was anything but scientific.

Carr noted that Nature's reviewers considered trivial errors and serious mistakes as roughly equal.

So why did Nature risk its reputation in such a way?

Perhaps the clue lies not in the news report, but in the evangelism of the accompanying editorial. Nature's news and features editor Jim Giles, who was responsible for the Wikipedia story, has a fondness for "collective intelligence", one critical website suggests.

"As long as enough scientists with relevant knowledge played the market, the price should reflect the latest developments in climate research," Giles concluded of one market experiment in 2002.

The idea became notorious two years ago when DARPA, under retired Admiral Poindexter, invested in an online "terror casino" to predict world events such as assassinations. The public didn't quite share the sunny view of this utopian experiment, and Poindexter was invited to resign.

What do these seemingly disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the truth.

We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It's even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.

But these are strange times - and high summer for supporters of junk science.

and also see the response to the Nature article from Britanica (pdf file as its too long to quote in full): britannica_nature_response.pdf

Fatally Flawed

Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature

Almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the

identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text

was wrong and misleading.

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

So when you try to defend wiki, at least do some proper research

[moonoi]

At the university level in Thailand (at least in our area), students/faculty are banned from using Wiki as an authoritative source.

Well that applies to many Universitys in the US as well, there have many tests done to compare the validity

of Wiki results to Encyclopaedia Britannica and the results have always said they are comparable

Erm actually no there hasn't. There has only been one authoritive comparison and that was so flawed as to make the results irrelevant. See my posting above for the reasons why.

Britiannica is a well respected source of information and students/researchers referencing material from there should be able to do so. Do not compare the wiki to Britannica and try to claim that its is the same or better. It isn't, even the guys that founded it say so as well so don't try to defend something that they can't.

Wikis' in general are a good idea, but they just don't work. But I'm sure you love the wiki so much you'll just ignore anything I or anyone else has to say that makes it look bad bet your a web 2.0 fan too

[DrFisher]

I use this site a lot I also post to it as do many Thai professors and Thai monks I know. This site is very useful to me as I teach international classes and translations can found in Thai and Chinese from the English version. I have found very few errors in the subjects I use and I personally know many of the professors from the USA that post to the subjects I use. I would be cautious using information about popular and or fad topics and subjects like witchcraft, parapsychology or certain religions for example simply because some of these articles are written by people who think they know or the facts are tainted with personal feelings and beliefs. Other than that like anything in life you have to know the truth for yourself before you pass it on to others.

[sylvafern]

Almost any search brings up a wikipedia link and it's great for getting general info. I also like how it has fact boxes with the main details (good for SEN/ESL kids who have trouble reading lots of information) and links to outside websites and further reference points.

I recently had to do a paper (post-grad level) on a topic that might have been fine if doing it in NZ where I'm from, but when adapting it to my situation was completely unable to source any useful information from educational journals and academic resources, etc. The only place I could find info was wikipedia. I requested a change of topic from my tutor and explained the reasons but wasn't allowed it so ended up basing the whole report on what I found out from wikipedia. Handed it in expecting the worst and ended up receiving a distinction for it which shocked me!

[toptuan]

Oh man, I worship Wikipedia. I use it all the time. I don't know where I'd be without it. I might make it my home page. Great site and great info on everything. I don't care what the bashers say, this is one of my very favorite sites of all time if not the favorite

"My mind's made up, so don't confuse me with the facts!!!"

[cdnvic]

"My mind's made up, so don't confuse me with the facts!!!"

Sounds like election time.

[yeti]

Well, for science articles, Wikipedia doesn't seem that bad, even a bit better than Britannica:

Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.

That is until you understand that Nature magazine faked the results

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

So when you try to defend wiki, at least do some proper research

Of course you could have read my first link (Nature: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head), including the updates in the introduction. There you would have found a link to Britannica's allegations AND Nature's response. As far as I know (but I may be wrong) Britannica didn't answer this response.

The best part of what you quoted is this:

Nature accompanied this favorable news report with a cheerful, spin-heavy editorial that owed more to an evangelical recruitment drive than it did a rational analysis of empirical evidence. It urged readers to "push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia."

And the title of the editorial is:

"Researchers should read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it enthusiastically."

Which is basically what we are saying here.

Of course you could have "done some proper research" before jumping at me, but that wouldn't have been funny .

By the way I am not trying to defend wikipedia, just saying that at least on some subjects (the scientific ones, which are less subjective) it should be treated as any other encyclopedia: providing useful information which needs to be crossed with as many sources as possible.

[TAWP]

Wikipedia is better then the encyclopedic books I grew up with (30 volumes, cost a fortune) in the aspect that 1) they get updated 2) they must provide sources.

And if you aren't able to follow the sourced entries and judge for yourself if it is a valid one, then perhaps...well, I'll let you finish that sentence yourself.

[Jet Gorgon]

As easy to use, topical and constantly updated as some of you posters say Wiki may be, the fact remains, the information posted on this site is not that: factual. I would not advise colleagues, nor students if I taught, to use this site as a viable source of research information. Especially for students or people who may accept what is written as truth. These ideas may stick in their heads forever. "But, Wikipedia said..." Nonsense. Most of the wiki posters are not professionals in their fields and are spouting heresay. And if one of my professors gave me high grades for a wiki-sourced paper, I would assume that he did not do his homework either. The Inet has many reputable sources of information; you just have to search for it. That is what researching and writing is all about. Basing a paper on an unconfirmed source? Rubbish. My editors would show me the door.

If info was catoregorised as opinion on wiki, that would be different.

I should check to see if the neo-nazis have a page on wiki claiming that the holocaust never happened. But then, I never use this site as a source. Maybe I should start using it as infotainment.

[meadish_sweetball]

the fact remains, the information posted on this site is not that: factual.

Nope. The fact is there is both factual and non-factual information there. Given the open-source nature and risk for corruption, it is up to you as a reader to find out which parts are factual and which aren't. Or to refrain from using it.

Nobody so far recommended quoting Wikipedia as a source for anything academic, did they?

Teach kids to check their sources and they will understand that reading and quoting Wikipedia is not sufficient - but if I were a teacher, I would also teach them that it *might* have interesting information - you get a number of facts which can be proved or disproved, often presented in a form that easily accessible and in many cases also discusses different views held about the subject... and many articles do have a source list at the bottom.

I have Encyclopedia Britannica as well as the main Swedish-language encyclopedia installed in my computer, and always cross reference them with Wikipedia, obviously trusting the respected dictionaries to a higher degree - but in a surprisingly high number of cases, Wikipedia maintains high-quality information consistent with what is stated in the more 'respected' sources.

In some cases it doesn't. If you cannot tell, then you haven't done your homework by cross-checking sources.