Wikipedia - Legit/No?

[MetKiller Joe]

I understand that teachers don't like wikipedia because it is an encylopedia created by people behind closed doors, but banning the sources on it as well?

Separately, I recently had a project on Jeudaism (Passover) and the teacher only wants .edu website and the typical EBSCO/ABC-CLIO sources. I don't know what goes through people's minds when they buy subscriptions to these resources. They are crap! The articles provided go on vague tangents for 1 page and then try to prove something with it usually, that's if you are lucky to get something related to your keywords. Yet, they block ban wikipedia, which, if you look at, summarizes everything better than most of these so called scholars on "scholary" websites can in 5 page essays.

I'm a senior, and at this point, I've learned just to take some bullshit sources and just read wikipedia. It kills me though, that I have to do this.

[Warsaw]

Most teachers here love Wikipedia, they just aren't allowed to endorse it because of the hard-ass higher ups.

[Joshflighter]

I live in Canada.. and they always tell us to use Wiki.. hmmm...

Maybe your teacher just wants you to put more effort into searching. :o

[Dwood]

Wikipedia, personally, is better than any other search except google books when writing research papers. It's like magic.

[rossmum]

Wikipedia itself is a definite no-no as far as assignments go, but some of the sources are definitely worth looking at.

I know that our school's history department openly told us the mere sight of Wikipedia in our bibliography would get us an instant fail. It may be convenient and it may be right most of the time, but a freely-editable resource is just too unreliable for anything serious.

[itszutak]

Use the sources provided within Wikipedia.

Pretty much any historical wiki has at least 5 sources on it; I just did a search for a random historical topic (French Invasion of Russia) and it has 50 citations right there. Granted, a lot are from the same five books, but it still gives you a good idea of where to look.

If you want the entire book, a good amount of books are scanned on http://books.google.com/.

[RobertGraham]

Teachers who think Wikipedia should be a banned source should be removed of their teaching status.

1. Its a great source as long as you Cite where you got your sources from.

2. Why should it be illegal (School wise) when it is used publicly, everyday, for pretty much every persons search? (Other then Google and Ask) It is technically there for students to use as a source for knowledge.

To be honest, your teachers a moron. Internet is too far advanced for teachers these days. I seriously had to explain how to use E-Mail to one of my teachers (sending, replying, etc). Too many Computer Illiterate teachers in the world.

[rossmum]

Teachers who think Wikipedia should be a banned source should be removed of their teaching status.

1. Its a great source as long as you Cite where you got your sources from.

2. Why should it be illegal (School wise) when it is used publicly, everyday, for pretty much every persons search? (Other then Google and Ask) It is technically there for students to use as a source for knowledge.

To be honest, your teachers a moron. Internet is too far advanced for teachers these days. I seriously had to explain how to use E-Mail to one of my teachers (sending, replying, etc). Too many Computer Illiterate teachers in the world.
You're a fucking idiot

It's not acceptable as a resource because any halfwit can edit an article and make it wrong, and until someone reads through, spots it, and fixes it, there's no way of telling unless you know the correct information.

Put some thought into things before you post them.

[Dwood]

You're a idiot

It's not acceptable as a resource because any halfwit can edit an article and make it wrong, and until someone reads through, spots it, and fixes it, there's no way of telling unless you know the correct information.

Put some thought into things before you post them.

Go into the WWII article Ross and change something to make it inaccurate. See what happens. And how long it takes.

[RobertGraham]

You're a fucking idiot

It's not acceptable as a resource because any halfwit can edit an article and make it wrong, and until someone reads through, spots it, and fixes it, there's no way of telling unless you know the correct information.

Put some thought into things before you post them.
Have you ever thought that people use the sources when they are correct also?

This is why they have staff, To fix problems halfwits cause.

[Timo]

It sort of sucks but it's understandable. It's not 100% reliable or credible, and articles are sometimes opinionated. There are plenty of other resources on the internet if you're willing to look - and there's always those libraries that have books. If the worst comes to the worst use wikipedia's sources for that page. Good luck if it's a book you can't get your hands on.

[rossmum]

Go into the WWII article Ross and change something to make it inaccurate. See what happens. And how long it takes.


Have you ever thought that people use the sources when they are correct also?

This is why they have staff, To fix problems halfwits cause.

It's the principle of it - and in any case, I've seen plenty of articles where there was a clear bias and all that had been done was the addition of one of those 'This article may require cleaning' notices. Controversial articles get edited so rapidly and so often that even with a whole nation working on the staff you'd have trouble keeping them clean.

Either way, I'd be glad to see you two try to use that one when you get a shite mark for using Wikipedia for most of your info in some major assignment. I could use a laugh.

[MetKiller Joe]

It's not 100% reliable or credible, and articles are sometimes opinionated.

You wouldn't believe some of the crap my teachers say (history wise). Some teachers I have just bring politics into everything; it ruins the subject matter, but then they turn around and tell me not to look into things that might be opinionated. I really do feel like telling them "Piss off; you can spout your crap, yet I can't use my sources which are, in all likely-hood, more credible than what you are saying."



Either way, I'd be glad to see you two try to use that one when you get a shite mark for using Wikipedia for most of your info in some major assignment. I could use a laugh.

The teachers who ban it, at least at my school, will check the sources, but if you put down legit sources from google (when you restrict websites to a small number, you've just cut a lot of good material, whether you want to admit it or not) and just copy wiki, it doesn't affect my grade.

[rossmum]

You could definitely pull a sly and list the source as something legit, but you want to mind how you go. Over here they can actually check shit like that.

[Sel]

but guys you can say hitler ran france from 1200-1920 SO OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING YOU CAN EDIT IS UNUSEABLE

[rossmum]

but guys you can say hitler ran france from 1200-1920 SO OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING YOU CAN EDIT IS UNUSEABLE
One of my friends in Cali said kids in his advanced history class actually had to ask the teacher who Hitler was, because they swore blind he was the king of France

I died a little inside that day

[MetKiller Joe]

You could definitely pull a sly and list the source as something legit, but you want to mind how you go. Over here they can actually check shit like that.

I feel bad for you. I really do. Because over here, it is understood that most essays you have to write, through college nonetheless, are pointless unless you are doing journalism or something (now, you may get something out of it like better english skills), which is why it really isn't worth my time (and believe me, that chunk is particularly useless) to get a legit set of sources.

[Dwood]

For those of you who have teachers stuck in the olden days, make it look like you actually tried on your assignments with this (http://www.google.com/books)

[rossmum]

I feel bad for you. I really do. Because over here, it is understood that most essays you have to write, through college nonetheless, are pointless unless you are doing journalism or something (now, you may get something out of it like better english skills), which is why it really isn't worth my time (and believe me, that chunk is particularly useless) to get a legit set of sources.
The worst part was when we'd have to do an essay on something I actually knew a lot about (probably why our history teacher was so keen to brush over the Battle of Britain in two seconds, I corrected him on the date too), they wouldn't accept 'my brain' as a source :smith:

[Heathen]

I understand that teachers don't like wikipedia because it is an encylopedia created by people behind closed doors, but banning the sources on it as well?

Separately, I recently had a project on Jeudaism (Passover) and the teacher only wants .edu website and the typical EBSCO/ABC-CLIO sources. I don't know what goes through people's minds when they buy subscriptions to these resources. They are crap! The articles provided go on vague tangents for 1 page and then try to prove something with it usually, that's if you are lucky to get something related to your keywords. Yet, they block ban wikipedia, which, if you look at, summarizes everything better than most of these so called scholars on "scholary" websites can in 5 page essays.

I'm a senior, and at this point, I've learned just to take some bullshit sources and just read wikipedia. It kills me though, that I have to do this.

Yes, and anyone who thinks it isn't doesn't know how Wikipedia works and therefore is a fucking idiot.

[Jean-Luc]

One of my friends in Cali said kids in his advanced history class actually had to ask the teacher who Hitler was, because they swore blind he was the king of France

I died a little inside that day

I died a little inside just reading that :smith:

[thehoodedsmack]

I lol'd a lot reading that. :v:

[LinkandKvel]

I lol'd at this thread. Ross don't say you cant get good grades from wikipedia. I get As and Bs on my report using wiki but I put different resources. The problem is the dummies that don't know how to put it in their own words. It's credible. Simple answer is dont use a controversial article, and if it is most likely it's highly opinionated and therefore easy to write in the first place. Wikipedia is legit just not 100%. Try more like 75%

[legionaire45]

Wiki's are useful for getting a good understanding of something as well as some sources to build up upon, but I prefer getting actual statistics from other sources.

[Phopojijo]

Wikipedia itself is a definite no-no as far as assignments go, but some of the sources are definitely worth looking at.

I know that our school's history department openly told us the mere sight of Wikipedia in our bibliography would get us an instant fail. It may be convenient and it may be right most of the time, but a freely-editable resource is just too unreliable for anything serious.That said... Randy Pausch said in his last lecture "I accept Wikipedia as a valid source... I worked for the World Book"

Just because there's a corporation writing it... doesn't mean it's more factual... look at Fox.

[Heathen]

One of my friends in Cali said kids in his advanced history class actually had to ask the teacher who Hitler was, because they swore blind he was the king of France

I died a little inside that day
Two kids in my class.
Neither of them knew where Puerto Rico is.
One (male) thought it was "near Florida or some shit"
The other (female) thought it was next to Australia.

I laughed my ass off so hard when I said "Are you serious? You don't know where Puerto Rico is? Look on that map behind you!"

The humor was that I pointed to a picture of eastern Europe and they sat looking at that for about 5 minutes before giving up.

My teacher was appalled.









And as for wikipedia, most edits are almost instantaneously changed back so :/

[legionaire45]

My English teacher finds it funny that according to wikipedia one of her students owns the Sparks when she is actually the co-owner :P.

EDIT: Lol, appears someone fixed that little unfact :D.

[Bodzilla]

wikipedia has the potential to be the most up to date resource engine in the world.
to ban it from use is not only stupid, but retarded because people will be exposed to older less relevant material.

you should always cross reference it to check it, but just look at some of the pages on things like chemistry and it just shows how illiterate these people are to the information super highway tm.

[p0lar_bear]

Ghost towns and urban decay are one of my favorite topics. So what do I do? I search up Wikipedia on ghost towns. Bam, I learn about a number of ghost towns, their histories, why they are the way they are, etc like Pripyat and Centralia, PA (would like to open a pizza joint there one day for kicks, heh).

Wikipedia is great for history, and good if you want to learn about something which has no dispute on what's true or false. Controverisal or grey topics are something you should research yourself.

[Timo]

You wouldn't believe some of the crap my teachers say (history wise). Some teachers I have just bring politics into everything; it ruins the subject matter, but then they turn around and tell me not to look into things that might be opinionated. I really do feel like telling them "Piss off; you can spout your crap, yet I can't use my sources which are, in all likely-hood, more credible than what you are saying."


Are you allowed to use your teacher as a resource?

[paladin]

Just use the sources that the wiki articles cite.

[MetKiller Joe]

Are you allowed to use your teacher as a resource?

No.

Ironically, I can interview my grandfather, a member of the Jewish federation I believe, yet I can't go on their website because it is a .org.

[n00b1n8R]

Just use the sources that the wiki articles cite.
^
It's not like they check your references anyway. :eyesroll:

[Mr Buckshot]

I say wikipedia is mostly reliable, but it's still good to use additional sources to verify what you read on wikipedia was true. Sometimes people do edit articles and put in inaccurate stuff, it may not be malicious, it can just be an accident, but it happens and the wiki moderators aren't gods so they can't always act immediately. I've seen cases where the date is supposed to be 1778 and wiki puts it as 1787, you know what I mean. Basically, go ahead and use wikipedia, just don't make it your #1 source of information.

And wikipedia usually cites the supposedly more trustworthy articles anyway, so just use those in your bibliography ;)

As for paper books, I hate using those because they lack Ctrl+F functions, but sometimes I have no choice. Also, my school subscribes to these article databases every year and all students get the unchangeable username/pw for free, it's more helpful than I thought.

[Cojafoji]

Wikipedia is a good place to start a search, and to gather general ideas. Never EVER use ANYTHING directly out of an article though. When used correctly, it is extremely helpful. Ever paper I write starts in wikipedia. From there I can always find related articles and books that are hosted on a more factually concrete site.

Edit* I forgot to mention, for articles bound in turmoil i.e. Roe vs Wade, and abortion, always check the change logs for diverging forms of opinion. It's a GREAT way to begin a compare/contrast paper or article.

[Limited]

Well I'm glad at least one sane person is still posting on Modacity..(rossmum).

If your talking about, just general knowledge and you personally want to know. Say I didnt know what continent France was in, then yes I'd Wikipedia it.

However, academically, woah big difference. In my University, if you reference Wikipedia, you will get immediately kicked out of the course, no questions asked.

Why? This is academic work people, I dont want something that is 75% likely to be true, or 80%, or even 90%. It has to be 100% correct, otherwise I cant state it.

There are TONS of other resources out there, alot of credible resources. THe fact is Wikipedia can not be 100% correct, therefore it just cant be used, simple.

Btw..Journals > Text Books > Websites > Magazine Articles.

For school yes, Wikipedia may be a viable resource however using it is bad practise and your basically opening yourself up to harsh critism and possible failure of the assignment.

Oh and also, nearly all the articles on the site are bias.

[Dr Nick]

Wikipedia is completely user-generated content.

So some people claim it can be faulty.

[ICEE]

I don't think its unfair to ban the citation of wikipedia directly, because of the fact that it can (and has) be abused. However, I see no harm in using it as a tool to gather credible sources.

[MetKiller Joe]

Well I'm glad at least one sane person is still posting on Modacity..(rossmum).

If your talking about, just general knowledge and you personally want to know. Say I didnt know what continent France was in, then yes I'd Wikipedia it.

However, academically, woah big difference. In my University, if you reference Wikipedia, you will get immediately kicked out of the course, no questions asked.

Why? This is academic work people, I dont want something that is 75% likely to be true, or 80%, or even 90%. It has to be 100% correct, otherwise I cant state it.

There are TONS of other resources out there, alot of credible resources. THe fact is Wikipedia can not be 100% correct, therefore it just cant be used, simple.

Btw..Journals > Text Books > Websites > Magazine Articles.

For school yes, Wikipedia may be a viable resource however using it is bad practise and your basically opening yourself up to harsh critism and possible failure of the assignment.

Oh and also, nearly all the articles on the site are bias.

Yeah, at university, I won't have to deal as much in that.


A perma-ban for citing wikipedia? Jebus, what if the kid found a cure for cancer and cited wikipedia? Or if they used wikipedia while researching for their PhD and found a way to make electric cars very efficient, or somesuch thing?

I find it incredible that academics simply refuse to think that wikipedia, or for that matter, anything, outside of what they consider intellectual is legitimate.

[Limited]

Well its because any one can add and alter information into the pages, they dont have to be qualified, they dont need to back it up with evidence and they can be totally anonymous.

[MetKiller Joe]

Well its because any one can add and alter information into the pages, they dont have to be qualified, they dont need to back it up with evidence and they can be totally anonymous.

Who judges people and qualifies them? Is a politician qualified? Is a lawyer qualified? Are my English teachers qualified? Are you going to trust whatever a person says just because they have an "M.D." or "PhD" next to their name?

Eistein never passed High school.. is he qualified?

No, you are right, nobody has back anything up, but every third sentence (that I've seen on wiki) has a citation; and if not, a bibliography is provided at the bottom.

[Cojafoji]

Well its because any one can add and alter information into the pages, they dont have to be qualified, they dont need to back it up with evidence and they can be totally anonymous.
No they cannot. If not posting with a username the IP is right the fuck out there, and if it's totally offensive or just blatantly wrong, wiki will ban you. I know that's not a fantastic arrangement but it usually keeps the super tards at bay. As for the expulsion at the mere mention of it, I find that quite laughable. I think that any educational institution that outlaws any information source is flawed. I know it could be fucked up info, but most professors I've met and talked to actually encourage using it as a stepping stone. Like I said in my previous post, it's fantastic if it's used correctly. I always include it with my works consulted, but it would never make it to my cited page.

[TVTyrant]

I've never had problems with it. Have never seen information thats inaccurate, and I check my textbooks an shit too.

[jngrow]

I agree that you should not be able to directly cite it, but to say "don't use it at all" is just lame. It's a really useful place to get started on something you have no idea about.

[Terry]

It's never a good idea to just use wiki anyway. Always back up with other websites to make sure. I've never had a teacher who had a problem with it, but when I know its going to someone higher, I might at times cite wikipedia's references.

[rossmum]

Ghost towns and urban decay are one of my favorite topics. So what do I do? I search up Wikipedia on ghost towns. Bam, I learn about a number of ghost towns, their histories, why they are the way they are, etc like Pripyat and Centralia, PA (would like to open a pizza joint there one day for kicks, heh).

Wikipedia is great for history, and good if you want to learn about something which has no dispute on what's true or false. Controverisal or grey topics are something you should research yourself.
This. Very this. I can remember numerous occasions where I've spent upwards of five hours straight on Wikipedia, just clicking from one article to the next and absorbing everything, correcting things if I knew they were wrong. I still wouldn't use it for major assignments, though.


As for paper books, I hate using those because they lack Ctrl+F functions, but sometimes I have no choice. Also, my school subscribes to these article databases every year and all students get the unchangeable username/pw for free, it's more helpful than I thought.
It's called an index. It's surprisingly useful.

For the people who have stated they've never seen anything wrong - that's like saying that AIDs doesn't exist just because you don't know anyone with it. I've seen several things that were off or just flat wrong, and I had to go back and edit them only to see someone had gone and made them wrong again a week or two later. Not everything is like that, but the fact anything at all is constitutes enough to invalidate it as a resource for assessed work.

[Phopojijo]

It's called an index. It's surprisingly useful.
You haven't read enough books with fucking shitty indexes then.

[p0lar_bear]

You haven't read enough books with fucking shitty indexes then.

We only read good books. :smug:

[Cojafoji]

It's called an index. It's surprisingly useful.

I lol'd so freakin hard. Spit beer all over my monitor...

[paladin]

Use common sense, if it doesnt sound legit dont use it. If it does do it.

[Dwood]

Use common sense, if it doesnt sound legit dont use it. If it does do it.

If I can make a legit argument of why the Holocaust was fake then I should use it?

[Jean-Luc]

You can't make it sound legit. Period.

[Heathen]

If I can make a legit argument of why the Holocaust was fake then I should use it?
You would need proof that it didn't happen.

It'd be like arguing that unicorns, bigfoot, or god were real.

[Phopojijo]

If I can make a legit argument of why the Holocaust was fake then I should use it?Yet he WOULD be allowed to cite sources stating that it never happened.

[RobertGraham]

You would need proof that it didn't happen.

It'd be like arguing that unicorns, bigfoot, or god were real.
So... he isn't? :gonk:

[teh lag]

Before it gets started - this thread is not about to become a discussion about God's existence.

[Bodzilla]

fucking teh lag stepping on mah soul.

:smith:

was just gunna quote Poobear then :smith:
But it's a stepping stone. if you use shit off wiki for your finished assignment you deserve the mark you get.
You have to cross referrence it, but it's so good for starting a layer that you cna build on.

the biggest problem i had with essay's and assignments weren't the subject at hand, but the first hurdle with building it.
once that got underway i did everything in a night.

[ExAm]

I understand that teachers don't like wikipedia because it is an encylopedia created by people behind closed doors, but banning the sources on it as well?Funny, my CC allows Wikipedia in addition to the EBSCO stuff, provided the information you use is cited from a non-personal site :v:

[Heathen]

So... he isn't? :gonk:
Just farting around :P