wiki or won’t he
tommyApparently, the Tribune has no problem using Wikipedia as a source. An editorial yesterday notes information found on Wikipedia, as did a recent article in the paper.
Tim (journeys of jack tripper) says the site based in St. Petersburg is as adequate a resource as anything else. Others question its usefulness. I want to hear from more of you. Is Wikipedia an acceptable source?
Loading ...
October 20th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Newspapers Using Wikipedia as a Source
Sticks of Fire reports that the Tampa Tribune used Wikipedia as a source for an editorial and a recent article on intelligent design. He’s asking if it is acceptable for newspapers to utilize Wikipedia as a legitimate source….
October 20th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Wikipedia (which I had no idea was based in St. Pete) is like any other web-resource: you have to be careful. I have used them as a reference in papers but only to the extent of providing differing contexts on subjects. If you go into the Wiki edit area you can see the arguments (check existentialism and you’ll see what I mean)develop and the articles history of re-writes and edits–often interesting discussions over what to post so people ARE putting a lot of thought into the entries.
I think open-source is great but a big opportunity for clever numb-nuts to, not so much screw up resource information, but sidetrack it.
You DO get many more ancillary references there, too so yay for the folks who use it correctly.
October 20th, 2005 at 10:57 am
My students use it so I’m automatically suspicious, but have yet to catch any errors. So that either says something about its accuracy or my incompetence. Which is worse?????
October 20th, 2005 at 11:14 am
If you cite Wikipedia’s info on the criticism of Wikipedia’s information am I to believe what is written is accurate or inaccurate? Is it hysterical that information regarding Wiki’s accuracy is actually noted on Wikipedia, or is it just me.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Considering that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales thinks there are serious quality problems with Wikipedia…
There are good things about it - the open nature of the project should tend to do what it sets out to do - make everyone who uses it their own fact-checker. But that doesn’t necessarily make it right. I think of it more as a starting point for other source references than an actual authority. Of course, that doesn’t stop me from referencing it…
October 20th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Great question, Sticks of Fire!
As a rule, but not an invariable one, I’m comfortable relying on Wikipedia for certain things that might commonly be researched in a general encyclopedia, and as I think about it probably in this order of reliablility: historical research, specific biographical info, and issue-spotting assistance regarding contemporary controversies.
Almost never do I rely solely on Wikipedia, just as I would not rely soley on Brittanica or any other resource, including specialized encylopedias or scholarly journals and books. With all such resources, one must be on guard against errors, bias, and significant omissions.
Are errors, prejudices, and omissions more frequent with Wikipedia than with standard, non-Internet reference works? Possibly, but not in any degree that matters if you do your own fact-checking, as you should with standard references, too. Over the years, I’ve know several academics, leading scholars, and even editors for Britannica and Collier’s. They say the very same thing about their own standard reference works as critics say about Wikipedia. In more than a few instances, they’ve been crtiical even about the very articles/subjects they had a hand in creating, claiming either editor or co-author mistakes, or more commonly misleading omissions arising from structural problems such as editorial and space guidelines.
In summary, the potential problems critics identify with Wikipedia in my judgment are in no measure different than with Brittanica or other non-Internet standard reference enclyclopedias. Take everything with a large grain of salt and your intellectual electrolytes will remain in balance.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Oh, man, as a journalist, there is no way I would use “wikipedia’ as a source .. it is a nice starting point, gives some good footnotes and such that can be a help .. but as a source, not gonna happen .
October 20th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
In a word — as an editor — no. Pretty much echo Chase’s sentiments.
In a few more words: Let’s say you’re researching something involving a lot of facts and figures. You check out the Wikipedia article, it lists a number of widgets (or whatever) at 115 billion. Go with that, submit your article.
Next day; Turns out some scamp was having fun, and changed the correct “million” to “billion”. Which happens rather routinely, and can persist for hours — not long, but long enough for a writer to be unlucky.
Wikipedia isn’t like any other Web source; other sites aren’t editable by the millions of passerbys that happen along. You might as well reference graffitti. It’s good for casual search and a starting point, but that’s it. The problem is people get lazy and make it their first and only stop.
October 20th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Next day; Turns out some scamp was having fun, and changed the correct “million†to “billionâ€.
Wouldn’t you double-check that like any other source, though? i think my argument is not that wikipedia is infallible, but that it’s no less fallible than a “mainstream” source.
October 20th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Hey,
I am in grad school to get my masters in library science.. this question has come up a lot. Librarians and librarians need to know how to evaluate a website, just like any other resource you would use. You may have a favorite dictionary, cookbook, or friend whom you think is more authoritative than others.
The problem with Wikipedia is that ANYONE can jump on to an entry and add information. Would I use a wikipedia source in the “works cited” page? No way. Do I periodically go to wikipedia for casual research? Very often.
Am I hoping that these recent news articles will illuminate the employement situation at Wikipedia.. of course, I need a job!
October 20th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
The problem with Wikipedia is that ANYONE can jump on to an entry and add information.
And every change to every entry is logged and easily accessed by a link at the top of the entry. We should be so lucky as to have access to the research methods of a given “mainstream” source.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Yeah, I would double-check; but in that case, why use Wikipedia in the first place? Save some times and go to a traditional vetted source.
Bottom line for me: If you want to use Wikipedia as a starting point, fine. But don’t even think about citing it as a source in your final report, because I’m going to fling it right back at you and tell you to find alternate confirmation on that.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Yes, ANYONE is great if ANYONE knows what they are talking about, but unfortunately not EVERYONE does..
October 20th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
I’m voting….yes! Acceptable in my books!
October 21st, 2005 at 10:36 am
Rember the quote from American Splendor:
“Is she smart?”
“She’s average.”
“Average is dumb!”
October 21st, 2005 at 5:39 pm
I like Wiki it as a quick ref or as a starting point; however, I would not use it as a single source on a “serious” research paper or news story.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
[...] We recently asked if you trusted Wikipedia. The Guardian (UK) asked the same question, and published the answers. [...]
November 8th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
I use and contribute to Wikipedia frequently; I wouldn’t contribute if I didn’t think the Wiki was worth something. Like other responders have said, the wiki is not the sort of resource you would want to use alone. But a decent wikipedia article has outside references, and a reasonably intelligent person should be able to parse the articles that are blatantly point-of-view from those that are reasonably encyclopedic in tone.
Of course, there are plenty of not-even-reasonably-intelligent people in the world, and I suppose that what the real concern is–what are the stupid people to do, if they can’t trust Wikipedia? I’d argue that stupid people can learn a thing or two from the Wiki, and even if everything they learn isn’t actually true, they’re still better off than the folks that learn everything from television news stations.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:44 am
One of the best things about Wikipedia for me is that it catalogs things that traditional encyclopedias would not. Such as this gem about the “hogshead” which features the conversion of Grandpa Simpson’s famous quote about his car’s fuel economy.