Wikipedia....Reliable Source of Info?

[HeWhoRocks]

At what point did Wikipedia become a reliable source of information? In my uni days we were strictly forbidden from referencing Wikipedia because of its often inaccurate nature: any WP reference = instant fail. My lecturers even used to lay traps by planting misinformation in WP and caught out more than one student with this trick. I still don't use it as a source for info without double checking the answers it gives me elsewhere. Is Wikipedia now considered a reliable source of accurate information and if so, why and what has changed?

[vasa1]

Originally Posted by grf

At what point did Wikipedia become a reliable source of information? In my uni days we were strictly forbidden from referencing Wikipedia because of its often inaccurate nature: any WP reference = instant fail. My lecturers even used to lay traps by planting misinformation in WP and caught out more than one student with this trick. I still don't use it as a source for info without double checking the answers it gives me elsewhere. Is Wikipedia now considered a reliable source of accurate information and if so, why and what has changed?

It's part of the internet with all the concomitant pros and cons . As you say, cross-checks are of utmost importance.

I would be hesitant to single out Wikipedia as being unreliable. Nowadays, print newspapers, magazines, TV, research papers (funded by vested interests) can all be sources of "compost".

Caveat emptor.

[MidnightCowboy]

Originally Posted by vasa1

I would be hesitant to single out Wikipedia as being unreliable. Nowadays, print newspapers, magazines, TV, research papers (funded by vested interests) can all be sources of "compost".

Caveat emptor.

....not to mention governments

[HeWhoRocks]

Thanks guys.
You both make valid points and i agree regarding other sources of misinformation, but i single out Wikipedia without hesitation because i am interested to know: is it or is it not now a reliable source of accurate info? It never was before. I shall put you two on the "I don't know" list then

@MC
I never ever consider any government to be a reliable source of anything except misery and tax demands

[Bob]

Originally Posted by grf

I still don't use it as a source for info without double checking the answers it gives me elsewhere.

Yes, this is now the standard advice, I believe, though viewpoints continue to vary.

Back in 2005, Wikipedia came out rather well in a head to head comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica went on to trash the study as being fatally flawed [pdf here], but Nature continued to defend the work.

IMO, for real world access to useful information, Wikipedia is often a clear first stop. Due to the nature of the Wikipedia community project, there are inevitably major imbalances in available content. Some areas are much better covered than others. And some articles are excellent, while others are low quality or highly questionable. But, hey, why make the best the enemy of the good?

Better to browse with care and teach children not to believe everything they read... in Wikipedia, the Britannica or wherever!

[freedog96150]

I personally use Wikipedia for informational topics when data is not critical. I always double-check sources when the data or information is going to be passed forward. So bottom line, I trust them *enough* for basic info.

As a side note - My wife is a Master's level student at a major university and they are ALLOWED to cite Wikipedia. The writing style of choice, the Chicago style, even has defined formats for citing Wikipedia. Of course, she is like me and tends to click the citation links at the bottom of each article and use actual sources when available.

Bottom line is that I check all sources and do not hold Wikipedia any higher or lower than other sources. Their bad rep is mostly undeserved at this point in time, and I have certainly seen some "authoritative" pieces from Main Stream Media riddled with inaccuracies and that does not stop anyone from believing them wholesale.

[Rizar]

To me it depends on the use of it. Like any encyclopedia, it's helpful for first learning a topic, but I also find it helpful in gathering points of view, counter arguments, or otherwise as a sample of ideas. The sad thing is that most textbooks are so awful and water-downed that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are often more substantive and therefore a good staging base for good ideas and other perspectives.

But in some of my (high school) teaching I've done, I didn't allow students to use any encyclopedia (Wikipedia or otherwise) as evidence for an argument. They could cite it as a source for minor points just as long as not much depended on it. I wanted them to use primary sources where possible and to multi-source any evidence from textbooks or other secondary sources. Any one scholar is usually an oddball to some other scholar (at least in my areas of study)!

It's a silly distinction to make since I'm sure a student could be clever enough to find many exceptions to this rule; for example, if they pointed to the same sentence in several sources and decided to choose Wikipedia as their source for the statement and drop the others as repetitive. And some subjects are somewhat objective and would lend to it being a better source. So I may tweak my rule in the future or throw it out altogether.

But in the majority of cases, I found that the best papers (that made use of Wikipedia) did so as a starting point (as in an introduction), a topic sentence that awaits evidence or discussion, a statement of a different perspective used to take up objections and give replies, or in a conclusion.

Actually there are many places where it can help.

The thing I notice is that some professors I've had in college can hand out a Wikipedia article in the same sentence as they tell you not to use it for your papers!

[HeWhoRocks]

Thanks all for taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions
I read them with interest and it pretty much looks like we are all in agreement. I think WP is slowly maturing in to an extremely useful resource but has a way to go yet. I think i may be some time before Britannica is superseded as (IMO) the #1 general reference encyclopedia, but in my view the old style encyclopedia will made redundant not by Wikipedia alone, but by Google and by extension, the web in general.

@Bob.
Thanks for the links Bob: i wonder how the reverse of your final (Britannica) link would look. It would be interesting if Britannica (or somebody) published a list of all the errors in WP by %: only then could we really get a true picture of the factual integrity of WP.

@Freedog.
I'm not so sure their reputation is entirely undeserved given the chaotic free for all WP once was. I know they go about their business in a different way now and so if this reputation for inaccuracy persists they will continue to deserve it. I do not think it will and would not be surprised in the future to see WP setting/becoming the standard for general knowledge reference sources, i just hope they don't morph into a "closed source" service. In the commons Wikipedia was born and there it should remain.

@Rizar.
Interesting to get a professional teacher's view on this. Many times i have used WP as a vehicle to steer me toward toward the information i seek, but it has never yet been my first and last port of call for info. Classrooms are in many respects different places to when i was at school, and i wish we had the internet back in the day, but i wonder if it's too easy for kids to find the info they need these days and consequently they don't absorb it as they should? Maybe they have too many sources to choose from? Who knows: i expect we'll find out in a generation or so.

Have a good one.
grf

[Bob]

Surely Wikipedia's already an extremely useful resource? And it's *free*... *free* as in *freeware* (just my 2c )

Oh... and anyone with an internet connection can consult it and access so much information... from wherever. To me, that seems a really big deal. With even bigger potential.

[MidnightCowboy]

I've found the most reliable data source to be the UK Sun newspaper. I get a lot of my stuff from there. I remember especially the story about infected flies bred by ex Nazis in Argentina. Must be true because they're biting me here all the time
Sometimes I find page three a bit of a challenge but hell, life is tough