Poll: Wiki-dependence: How much do you use Wikipedia for official papers?

[BiscuitTrouser]

I go to wikipedia, find passages i want and then follow wikipedias sourcing back to the direct source and use that instead. I view wikipedia more as a source hub than as a source, its a way for me to locate many different sources so i can check their validity before quoting them directly. It seems to work a lot better this way and im surprised few people use it like this.

 

[jklinders]

I'd never use it for anything serious but for referencing pop culture stuff or as a jumping off point for finding source material on a subject it can be useful.

As mentioned it should be avoided like the plague for anything really controversial like Middle East politics or revisionist history.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I use it as a starting point for anything, its easy to read and is usually simplified

Then just scroll down to the bottom of the page for the links and sources, use them as the source and quote from wikipedia

For a subject like geography its great unless you go into energy and natural resources, thats where wiki fucks up because it never has more than one view on something like crude oil longevity..

 

[SckizoBoy]

Eh... when I was writing papers for uni courses etc. it never actually occurred to me to use Wikipedia... and even now, when it's difficult to sift BS from good reference material (OK, not that hard given my area of study), I don't even bother...

*shrug*

 

[Dogstile]

If i'm trying to learn about something and I have no idea where to start, I suppose its useful as an overview. Once i've seen it i'll move on though, its never a source.

 

[R4ptur3]

I use it like you OP. Wikipedia in my opinion is great IF you can find the sources it has somewhere else and they are the same or similar. Me and my mate once came across a page on a tudor for our history work (It was some sort of tudor, I can't remember haha) and it said his name was someone pronounced sum-1, so yeah.

 

[Zealous]

When I do use wikipedia, I find I mostly use it to get a basic understanding of some concept. Then once I know what I'm talking about a little bit, I'll do more precise google searches until I get what I was looking for. Unless it's something like a novel summary or something that doesn't really require any more research.

If I'm looking for sources for a paper or anything serious, I'll just go the the sources at the bottom of the page. They're usually far more detailed and, well, correct that the wikipedia page.

 

[King of Wei]

I only use it for personal stuff, like looking up TV shows and game info. I'd never even think of using is on research papers. If I were even to glance at the website I'd probably be laughed off campus.

 

[deathninja]

It's a useful starting point when trying to get a feel for a topic or concept. Decent articles will have primary sources linked anyway, which I'd follow up on.

 

[Starik20X6]

The trick is to check the sources cited in the Wikipedia article. You can use the Wiki page for info as long as you refer to it as from the original source, not as from Wikipedia, and make sure that source is reputable.

 

[Neonit]

we (i am a student) are required to post every source we use when writing assignments. "wikipedia" is not seen as a valid source, we are allowed to use it to gain information, but if we want to incorporate any of this information IN the actual assignment, we are asked to provide the source BEHIND the wiki (references part of wikipedia), but mostly we are discouraged to use wiki as source, we are usually provided with better alternatives.

so there is that, and i agree with that sentiment for a large part.

i do use wiki heavily for my own leisure, as in "start reading one article, see another through a link, realise its 2 hours later" and if you ask me thats the main point of wiki.

so basically i am discouraged from using wiki for official purposes.

 

[Judgment90]

I do use Wikipedia when I'm writing History or English papers like if it was for a paragraph, but I wouldn't go as far as say it is my primary source, due to the site's unreliability.

For the most part, I just try using other websites for my information.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Wikipedia is a quick reference for me. When writing papers for Chemistry I might do a quick wiki search to get a rough idea of the topic or to quickly look up the properties of a particular compound. I find it's good at linking me to alternate naming conventions/nomenclature and related topics that can search for more thoroughly in other sources.

It's a starting point but NEVER as an actual source for a research paper.

But for personal stuff it's just fine in my opinion.

From an academic perspective, you don't use Wikipedia as a source for a research paper for the same reason you don't use any other encyclopedia as a source: it's just an overview. What's more, it's essentially a research paper itself, as in an undergrad, non-published research paper. Citing Wikipedia (or Britannica, for that matter) is pretty much like citing your buddy's paper. It has less to do with reliability and more to do with how close your sources need to be to the primary sources.

What it's good for is, as gritch has pointed out, a jumping off point. It gives you an overview of the topic, and some sources to go looks at, but encyclopedias in general are so broad that even a minimum of research on a given topic will make you enough of an expert to write a suitable article for one from memory; they're just not very in-depth.

 

[neverarine]

when i was in college i generaly used the wiki as a second opinion type of thing, some of the topics i did research on didnt exactly have a wealth of sites dedicated on them... so i would use wiki to find further information about the important people for the topic and to just confirm the data i found elsewhere

now a days i just use it for personal information that im too lazy to look up... like that days i spent a few hours reading stuff about Kabbalah, or the lance of longinus...

 

[scorptatious]

When we did research papers back in High School, our teachers told us not to use Wikipedia, describing it as a "grafiti" site. Thinking about it now, I'm guessing that they actually wanted people to actually work for a good grade on their papers. So we had to search the web for research material.

 

[IndomitableSam]

<-Librarian

I use it for their references. I'll give the article a read so I know what the topic is about (best place to quicly inform yourself about what it is you're researching), then follow the footnotes and refrences for different points that examine the research I'm supposed to be doing.

It's a great gateway... but that's all it really can be if it's real research being done.

... Honestly, though, for quick refrence or personal use, it's pretty much the only place I go. If I want clarification, I'll check some sites listed below the article, but for the most part, I trust it.

 

[Woodsey]

Loads, it's a gateway to actual sources. Read the article to see what info it has, then go to the actual source and see what it says and whether it's actually reliable or not.

The problem with Wikipedia is that people read Wikipedia, take it to be the truth and then quote Wikipedia. Instead you need to do some Wikiception: the article within the article.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Only for getting the general gist of a topic. However, I often come back to use the sources that Wikipedia cites, as they're often rather good.

 

[Albino Boo]

The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that you don't know where its coming from. The normal way with books and articles you can normally get a quick read on the authors point of view and take that into account with wiki you cant do that.


Lets take this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sixtus_IV


in particular this section

Sexuality

Although Sixtus IV has been accused of having had male lovers,there appears to be little to substantiate such claims other than the diary records of Stefano Infessura. He was accused of awarding benefices and bishoprics in return for sexual favours and nominated a number of young men as cardinals, some of whom were celebrated for their looks. While it is indisputable that Sixtus favoured his relatives in the hope of having faithful executors of policy, there is less evidence of direct corruption or favouritism. The exception may perhaps be Giovanni Sclafenato, who was appointed as cardinal according to the papal epitaph on his tomb for "ingenuousness, loyalty and his others gifts of soul and body". The English theologian John Bale attributed to Sixtus "the authorisation to practice sodomy during periods of warm weather." However, such accusations by Protestant polemicists can be dismissed as anti-Catholic propaganda.

This passage is untrue. There were wide spread attacks on Sixtus IV by contemporary Italian catholic sources largely coming from Florence after the failure of the Pazzi conspiracy. Not only did they alleged that Sixtus was bisexual but also had an incestuous relationship with his sister and his nephew was in fact also his son by his sister. Allegations were also made that he issued a papal bull allowing male members of a Roman family have gay sex in the summer. This particular allegation forms the being of John Bales latter attack but the prime source of news of Italy in England at the time was the London branch of the Medici bank. So the allegations cannot be dismissed as anti-Catholic propaganda because the source was catholic. On the balance of evidence most non Catholic polemicists accept that that Sixtus IV was bisexual (in common with many other renaissance popes) but did not have an incestuous relationship with his sister or issued a Papal bull legalising gay sex in the summer . Now if you just checked the sources you wouldn't know that. The danger lies in what the article doesn't say not what it says.

 

[Artina89]

At University we weren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference at all. If you did you would get an automatic zero for that module, even though some the references could be pretty useful. As most people have said: good gateway for the topic, but don't take the actual wiki article as gospel.