Why wikipedia cannot be trusted

[Thornir Alekeg]

No I certainly would not use wikipedia, especially since there are no professional editors/fact checkers.

Anyone can edit wikipedia

 

[wingsandsword]

No I certainly would not use wikipedia, especially since there are no professional editors/fact checkers.

I hope you don't get any information about Roleplaying games from reading these message boards, since these posts don't have professional editors and fact checkers, same goes for most web pages in general. I hope you don't take what your friends/co-workers/acquaintances tell you seriously either, since what they said wasn't verified and edited. You recieve most of the information we receive is actually from unverified and unedited sources, you just don't realize it. Wikipedia is another layer on that.

Wikipedia isn't a definiative, authoritative resource you'd do serious research or cite in an academic context, but it's a good general reference that is well known, quick, and extremely broad in its scope. I'm an avid reader (and contributor) to wikipedia, but I have no illusions about it being some definiative and authoritative reference.

If I cited it in an academic context, I'd expect to have a very irate professor and a very low grade. Amusingly enough, I have seen it used for educational purposes though, a friend of mine is in a class this semester where one lesson was that the instructor printed out a copy of the wikipedia article on the subject they were studying, and the assignment was to find the errors, which the class would discuss and debate, and then they correct the article, providing citations for all their information within the article, and a note on the corresponding Talk page about the corrections to the article.

In fact, the ability of Wikipedia to be edited by anybody largely works to its advantage. IME, most of the time most editors are trying to help out and contribute what they can and talk about what they know. While you have anonymous editors and troublemakers (who get banned), IME most of the contributors are knowledgable and well meaning folks who write about what they know. With this, you end up with well written articles on minor subjects that a major encyclopedia would never bother with. Are those articles the sort of thing you'd stake your reputation on? No way, but they are the sort of thing that could start you looking into the field, or give you an idea on it before checking other sources. Due to it's sheer breadth, for some obscure sources Wikipedia is one of the few references on the web because the raw number of contributors means that somebody has had something to say about it.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Yes, I believe in the possibility of ghosts.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I think, if I were to cite Wikipedia on anything I turned in for school, I would get an automatic F. Okay - well maybe not an F - but it would certainly mean getting a substantially lower grade than if I did real research.

 

[Crothian]

thank goodness no is taking this thread to the absolute extremes of realism :\

 

[cuteasaurus]

I think, if I were to cite Wikipedia on anything I turned in for school, I would get an automatic F. Okay - well maybe not an F - but it would certainly mean getting a substantially lower grade than if I did real research.

Hehe...that's true. One class I just started actually put it on the syllabus- if you cite Wikipedia you get docked...a LOT.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Hehe...that's true. One class I just started actually put it on the syllabus- if you cite Wikipedia you get docked...a LOT.

*nods* My thesis advisor was ranting about this just the other day. Wikipedia just isn't designed for "serious research". That's what the internet is home to JSTOR, Evans, ProQuest, etc.

 

[Crothian]

As a teacher I'd let the students try and use it and then just dock their grade as the source was obviously not indepth enough. These teachers are way to nice.

 

[IronWolf]

Wikipedia isn't a definiative, authoritative resource you'd do serious research or cite in an academic context, but it's a good general reference that is well known, quick, and extremely broad in its scope. I'm an avid reader (and contributor) to wikipedia, but I have no illusions about it being some definiative and authoritative reference.

I think this is an important point. It's not definitive or authortative but can be a great resource as a jumping off point into more research. As with anything, take it with the grain of salt, but if doing so it can be a useful tool.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I hope you don't get any information about Roleplaying games from reading these message boards, since these posts don't have professional editors and fact checkers, same goes for most web pages in general. I hope you don't take what your friends/co-workers/acquaintances tell you seriously either, since what they said wasn't verified and edited. You recieve most of the information we receive is actually from unverified and unedited sources, you just don't realize it. Wikipedia is another layer on that.

Actually I do use Wikipedia, but the original question was about "serious research." In that context I would not use Wikipedia. Sorry for not being clear about that.