Wikipedia writers

Each of my professors has noted that references from Wikipedia.com aren't going to be counted as part of our term papers because they feel it's not a reliable resource. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I've found both good and bad information listed there.

I've made some very minor edits, and a silly-vandalism revert. Haven't written a real article or whatever. Once I started looking for more guidance than "Be Bold!" and such offered me, I stumbled over userboxen, and found huge amounts of "wikipedia help" that was "helpful" but didn't answer my specific questions. I think it's a bit too much of an anarchy, especially when you get into controversial topics.

Regardless, I often look in the history and discussion of an entry to see what might have been deleted.

jennhollowell said:

Each of my professors has noted that references from Wikipedia.com aren't going to be counted as part of our term papers because they feel it's not a reliable resource. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I've found both good and bad information listed there.

Click to expand...

Well, there's another thing with citing. If you cite a printed work, you have to include the publication date (usually just the year) and the edition, if there's more than one edition. Likewise, when you cite Wikiledia (should you decided to do so...) you have to include the date and time you accessed the entry, as it can change at any time. But with date and time included, someone else can go to the entry's history and at least verify that it said what you said it did at that time.

That's very true. I wonder if this stipulation is in place because they don't want to take the time to do this? I wouldn't blame them considering the amount of papers they have to read and grade. I've had an editor say they didn't accept Wikiepedia as a resource, either. So, I use it mostly for personal research or for articles I write for suite101 (because it's pretty much open content).

Maryn said:

I have so little expertise compared to many, but I've corrected existing articles on Wikipedia, citing my sources and noting the origin of the misinformation and why it's wrong.

Maryn, not trusting anything there completely

Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust it either. I mean not for specific things. I usually use it for tv information and broad questions. Like information on diabetes. General government information. You know, simple stuff.

jennhollowell said:

Each of my professors has noted that references from Wikipedia.com aren't going to be counted as part of our term papers because they feel it's not a reliable resource. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I've found both good and bad information listed there.

Click to expand...

My profs say the same thing. But they do all say that it's a good place to START a search. Also a few of my teachers have pages. Which is how we found out that my government prof had been to jail like three times. For activism. He was a cool guy.

I'm scheduled to write an article for Scholarpedia in January, which is a whole different thing. For one, it has an academic editor and the articles are all peer-reviewed. After writing it, I become a co-editor for that article, with a say on any potential additions or changes. If anyone wants to look for peer-reviewed articles, check out Scholarpedia. It's relatively new, and its scope is limited, but it's expanding constantly.

Thank you! I haven't heard of this site before, so I'm looking forward to checking it out!