[NonSense]

The question is very straightforward. Whenever I'm writing papers for school I like to use wikipedia as a reference but am always curious to the legitimacy of the articles. I know that anyone that is registered can edit the articles but I don't recall ever coming across any information that is totally wrong. At worst I usually find that questionable material is presented as questionable.

So what do people think of the legitimacy of wikipedia, or at least in the sense of citing it for research?

I'm also curious to know if anyone has come across any wrong information

 

[Ciberblade]

Wikipedia is a widely accepted source for most subjects...and we use it here in debates.

However

For cited research...it is not a valid source. Most edu's would not allow the work...even if it is 100% correct. Your best bet is to look at the info that wiki cites....and use them as your source as well

 

[angelize56]

Hi NonSense and CB!

Found this:

Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers has been known to result in a grade of F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

 

[angelize56]

You also might want to read Wikipedia's disclaimer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

 

[brendandonhu]

Credible Wikipedia articles cite their sources. When you use a Wikipedia article, look at the "References" section at the bottom to find out where the info came from.

 

[WarC]

Sometimes there is blatant bias in Wikipedia articles, or outright vandalism of the article. Mostly that concerns political topics. For instance I have seen some real left-wing shill work on wikipedia. You'll be reading this straight-shooting seemingly legit article and then the next paragraph shoots off into la-la land: "Of course, none of this would have happened had American leadership acted properly" or something like that. Or you might come across an article with curses and profanity scattered around. One time I was reading an article on some historical european and nearly bust out laughing when I came across something like: "Following this period he went back to Venice to finish his life's work. THAT PANSY!"

A lot of times, though, a controversial article on wikipedia will be marked right at the top as being one whose authenticity or neutrality is in question.

Generally I find wikipedia to be extremely informative, and it is one of the first links I will click on if it turns up using The Google on the internets.

 

[GoneForNow]

seen some real left-wing shill work

Is there any other?

 

[WarC]

Is there any other?

Yeah I guess that is sort of redundant, huh?

 

[Fidelista]

Wikipedia -- Britannica --all leftwing shills , as are all college Professors {esp with beards!! } .
brendandonhu's answer is best --check references and use common sense. >f

 

[Wino]

....................................... --check references and use common sense. >f

Wow!! That leaves the wingers out in the cold.

 

[bassetman]

I would double check sources before claiming certainty!

 

[moonmist]

I would double check sources before claiming certainty!

bman...... lost your email

 

[bassetman]

bman...... lost your email

PM'ed you!

 

[Holly3278]

I read somewhere that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica or one of the other popular standard encyclopedias.

 

[NonSense]

Hi NonSense and CB!

Found this:

Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers has been known to result in a grade of F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

:up: Simple enough... probably shouldn't cite wikipedia