Encyclopedia Britannica has deemed the study "fatally flawed". Now, they're hardly an impartial observer in this case, but I thought it was worth pointing out given how frequently Wikipedia is used as a resource here.
The BBC News article is fairly useless, I think, in that it doesn't go into any kind of depth analyzing Encyclopedia Britannica's charges or Nature's rebuttal of them, but you can read them and decide for yourself how valid you think they are. I'll probably be posting more about whether or not I think that they have merit later, but I don't have time right now to do more than skim the two .pdfs.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this is my absolutely unscientific opinion, but I recently had to do a research paper on a fairly obscure, but not rare topic. Not only were lot of the Wikipedia articles I glanced at woefully general, but there were blatant inaccuracies as well. Nothing I would presume to correct, but I don't really think a laywoman could...
Still, in 10 years, I am sure such errors will mostly be cleared up and it's unimportant given that Wikipedia is usually comprehensive and correct and it's free information (uh, if you count the internet fee).
But, I think Science should realize that Wikipedia is relatively new, and I'm sure the early editions of Britanica were full of errors and they should be studying the chance of becoming more accurate over time rather than comparing the two as they exist right now. 'Cause all it would take would be my prof and a few of his colleagues on a bored Sunday night to edit some of those entries and they would be fixed. The ease of such corrections compared to the process of compiling an encyclopedia (where internal politics also get involved) shouldn't be discounted either.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This clearly shows a lack of intellectual honesty or rigor on the part of Nature. Their article was clearly written to sell issues, rather than be a scholarly examination.
But, then, it's Nature, and not Britannica we're speaking about. One can hardly expect the same commitment to accuracy and scholarly standards.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loathe Wikipedia. Words cannot express how much I despise and detest that ridiculous pile of internet crap.
As someone who receives piles of essays wherein the ONLY CITED SOURCE is Wikipedia, I dislike the site because it encourages laziness and practically discourages the use of libraries and primary (and even secondary!) source materials. For a general overview of information, fine, whatever - if someone wants to know *for personal use* what the heck some sort of tree is, great. Wikipedia is perfect for that. What Wikipedia should not attempt to be or even portray itself as is a serious source of information and scholarship.
I think I'm going to go burn an effigy of Wikipedia or something. I've got another round of essays coming in on Thursday and I think I'm going to need the stress relief.
I might be off on my picture of Wikipedia, but seeing as I now refuse to use the site - I'm over it.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On some topics, Wikipedia gives specific information of a sort that one would never find in a normal encyclopedia. For example, they have a lot of very detailed math and physics articles (ie, they go into equations and derivations). Britannica and its ilk just aren't aiming at the same goals.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do math and physics books and research articles. Why not look there - in places infinitely more likely to be accurate and respected?
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this respect, Wikipedia is more like a library (or like the World Wide Web itself) than like a typical reference work. The mere fact that a book is in the library is no guarantee against bias or misinformation. The same can be said of Wikipedia articles. This does not make libraries (or Wikipedia) useless, it just means that they should be approached differently than one approaches a typical reference work.
posted
I adore Wikipedia, I'm quite the addict and spend hours browsing it. But I would never dream of using it as a source in any kind of paper! I can't believe your students do, Carrie.
I recently got back from an exhibit at the Sackler Gallery in DC and looked up the artist I'd seen there. The article was incredibly inaccurate, which is why I don't blindly accept everything I read.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely love Wikipedia. It's my favorite site. Yes, I have found quite a few errors, but whenever Wiki gets them and knows, it gets fixed. Anyone who uses just one source is quite illogical. I use Wiki and others. Generally, if I look up info on Wiki, and find that it is different in a book, I trust the book more.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Wikipedia, also. Anytime I'm interested in something I go straight there just to get a basic knowledge of it. I read something once about Wikipedia's errors that went something like: Wikipedia; if you don't like it, change it! Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Wikipedia is the easiest way to get information on the internet (after all, you have to pay to get online access to most of Encyclopedia Britannica) if I were still a student, I certainly wouldn't be citing Wikipedia in any papers that I wrote. In fact, even in college, (which was only 5 years ago for me) I don't think I ever cited a website for a paper I was writing. If I needed to use the internet, it was only to help locate a source.
For example, when I was looking for information on leverite marriage for a paper in my ancient hebrew class, I used an online version of the Talmud in order to more easily locate the passages I needed. However, once I was directed to the appropriate passages I went upstairs to the copy of the book and looked things up.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would cite it in a paper, but first, I would back up that info, with books, and other sites. After all, in 8th grade, teachers don't really care where you get your information. So, I, (sadly, actually) am in quite good luck. Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I adore Wikipedia, I'm quite the addict and spend hours browsing it. But I would never dream of using it as a source in any kind of paper! I can't believe your students do, Carrie.
Agreed 100%! Yeesh, even back in the dark ages when I was in high school, we were never allowed to use a single encyclopedia as our only source for just about any paper. A non-encyclopedia source was almost always required as well. And that's without some of the flaws that wikipedia has.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: For example, when I was looking for information on leverite marriage for a paper in my ancient hebrew class, I used an online version of the Talmud in order to more easily locate the passages I needed. However, once I was directed to the appropriate passages I went upstairs to the copy of the book and looked things up.
Too bad you weren't on Hatrack then. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get to cite wikipedia quite frequently. Of course, that likely has to do with studying the behavior of people online -- its a primary source!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: As someone who receives piles of essays wherein the ONLY CITED SOURCE is Wikipedia, I dislike the site because it encourages laziness and practically discourages the use of libraries and primary (and even secondary!) source materials. For a general overview of information, fine, whatever - if someone wants to know *for personal use* what the heck some sort of tree is, great. Wikipedia is perfect for that. What Wikipedia should not attempt to be or even portray itself as is a serious source of information and scholarship.
This seems unnecessarily harsh. Wikipedia is very useful because it covers a much broader range of topics than reference materials can, and often provides useful links. For example, the OSC page contains a complete bibliography, a brief bio, and links to his political writings, his sci-fi mag, this website, an interview he gave on hour 25, etc. It is the most useful resource for someone with a little curiosity and 15 minutes to quickly find out about something.
And as others mentioned, it has some specialist uses as well. Suppose I'm working on a math problem set, and one of the problems gives the hint: use Pick's Theorem. I may have no idea what Pick's Theorem is, or even what branch of math it's in, but I can spend about 30 seconds looking it up on wikipedia to find a statement of the theorem and a proof. Without knowing anything but the name of the theorem, this probably would have taken me more like 15 minutes in a mathematical library.
Of course, you do have a valid reason for not liking it - it is having a negative impact on your classes. But it seems to me that there is a much easier and more effective solution to this than boycotting wikipedia - simply require that your students provide at least n print sources for their essays, and use footnotes to give specific sources for the facts cited in the essays. If none of the footnotes refer to print sources, it's clear that the print sources aren't being used.
posted
Yeah, Wikipedia is fantastic on Nuclear Reactors, too! Accurate, detailed, and excellent. Wikipedia has lots of stuff that just doesn't exist elsewhere. The greatest thing about it is its ease of use and how it almost always tells you exactly what you needed to know about the subject at hand.
We had a Brittanica at home and it was a family joke how you can NEVER find anything you want to know in Brittanica. I think Brittanica sucks and Wikipedia is teh r0xx0rz.
posted
Is there a third type of source after primary and secondary? If so, I'd say that's what Wikipedia is most of the time. Same goes for the Discovery Channel. Like a report on other poeples opinions of a primary source of information (common knowledge?).
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia is aweme because it is like a modern hitchhikers guide to the galaxy where people can add there own knowledge too it. It grows and expands as it goes.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a general overview of information, fine, whatever - if someone wants to know *for personal use* what the heck some sort of tree is, great. Wikipedia is perfect for that.
This is exactly why I love Wikipedia -- it's perfect for my needs.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros do ender, the third source could be called "tertiary", but I think the convention is to have one primary source and multiple secondary sources.
I don't know why academia dislikes wikipedia so much. It seems like they are jealous of it, almost, if that's possible. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wikipedia has lots of stuff that just doesn't exist elsewhere.[/QB]
I don't quite believe this is true, but I'm guessing you my not have meant it quite how it sounds to me. I think everything in Wikipedia exists somewhere else (I doubt it's a primary source for anything), but that in many cases the information is just closer at hand on Wiki. As has been mentioned above, you can get information in 30 seconds on Wiki that might take much longer from other sources. The other sources exist, they're just not so handy.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I don't know why academia dislikes wikipedia so much. It seems like they are jealous of it, almost, if that's possible.
I expect that it's because it's an encyclopedia, and one that everyone is suddenly using. If the Encyclopedia Britannica were suddenly as popular as Wikipedia has become, and students en masse were using it as their sole source, you'd hear a lot of complaining about EB from academics instead.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more because Wikipedia is open-source. While I'm sure the mythical "they" look out for it, I'm sure some of the entries are rather... suspect.
I think that for academics, the issue with Wikipedia is about authorship and credit. Academics write books, and they'd much rather you read them than read some random summary by someone who isn't quite the expert on the same topic. I don't like it because it's too easy - doing college-level work requires more than a couple clicks and a poor summary of a summary. I would rather people use their own brains and put down their own thoughts instead of pandering those given by Wikipedia (or any equivalent site/work - this disdain is in no way limited to Wikipedia, just directed at it through many essays worth of tripe).
Jealous? Nah, not so much. I just wish it kept other channels of research open.
NB: This is from my own experience. I'm sure people exist who use Wikipedia appropriately. I'm not talking about them.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see dissing something because it's too easy. My elderly aunt used to tell me I should learn to use a slide rule and keep one with me in case my calculator ever went out on a test. I was like, no thanks, why don't I buy a backup calculator instead? Pretty much every great new invention is disliked by someone for being too easy.
The fact that Wikipedia is easy is a GOOD thing. The only problem I could see is if people found it to be inaccurate, and it seems that the consensus is that its accuracy is in the same range as that of other trusted sources.
I do agree that single sources are always suspect, so I can totally see that angle. It's much better to read three or four independent sources.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I don't know why academia dislikes wikipedia so much. It seems like they are jealous of it, almost, if that's possible.
Uhh... you do realize that Nature (the publishers of the comparison study) is one of the two pre-eminent science scholarly journals in the world, right? You don't really GET more academic than Nature.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carrie- If you're teaching college courses, houldn't they be required to use sources from peer-reviewed journals. We are. At the beginning of every semester every class I'm in spends a day telling us how to recognize a peer-reviewed journal etc, etc.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see dissing something because it's too easy. My elderly aunt used to tell me I should learn to use a slide rule and keep one with me in case my calculator ever went out on a test. I was like, no thanks, why don't I buy a backup calculator instead? Pretty much every great new invention is disliked by someone for being too easy.
I keep a buggy whip in my glovebox just in case.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Ah, but Nature is Science, not Pedagogy. So, yes, I probably picked the wrong word.
Fair 'nuff. Although I think science academics tend to dislike Wikipedia as a source as well, as you want to cite primary literature whenever possible in scientific papers. It's not an issue of who gets the credit, it's an attempt to use as pure a source of data as possible- if you're citing a review (or, god forbid, a textbook/ encyclopedia) in your paper, your information is already filtered through at least one other author's viewpoint. Citing the original research limits bias to the actual original authors, and generally raw data isn't something you can fudge without a hundred of your peers clawing your eyes out. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Wikipedia is not that it is easy, it's that anyone can create or change an article which means that for academic purposes anything that is found in Wikipedia would need to be verified by an outside source before it can be used in a paper to ensure its validity. Nature may state that it is almost as accurate as Britannica but there's no guarantee that what you are reading is one of the more accurate articles.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nature may state that it is almost as accurate as Britannica but there's no guarantee that what you are reading is one of the more accurate articles.
While you make good points, this last sentence applies just as much to Britannica as to Wikipedia.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uhh... you do realize that Nature (the publishers of the comparison study) is one of the two pre-eminent science scholarly journals in the world, right? You don't really GET more academic than Nature.
Well, they didn't really prove it in this instance. I mean, outside all of the academic concerns raised by Brittanica, they even said in their response that they didn't fact check anything their reviewers said.
Would this put them in the same credibility level as the New York Times? Mostly accurate, but occasionally wildly inaccurate?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that for academics, the issue with Wikipedia is about authorship and credit. Academics write books, and they'd much rather you read them than read some random summary by someone who isn't quite the expert on the same topic.
I'm sure they would. I'm sure they would also rather that I read their book vs. their rival's competing theory. Fortunately, they don't have a say in that either.
quote:I don't like it because it's too easy - doing college-level work requires more than a couple clicks and a poor summary of a summary. I would rather people use their own brains and put down their own thoughts instead of pandering those given by Wikipedia.
You are right to expect more from your students. But it's their fault for doing poor work, not Wikipedia's. I don't understand why you couldn't just ban Wikipedia as a source, or require multiple sources, or both.
And god forbid that anyone should have a quick easy way to learn the basics about an obscure topic without spending hours searching. I've lost count of the number of times I've been able to follow a discussion here on Hatrack only because Wikipedia's been available to give me a rough idea of what's being discussed when someone uses a math/physics equation as an example or references an organism I hadn't learned before.
From your posts, you hate Wikipedia because of how it's used, and you hold it against Wikipedia itself? That makes little sense to me.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia is useful, but I have no delusion that it is wholly accurate about anything.
It's like asking one of your parents a question. You can get an answer (which may be right or wrong), but it's your decision whether or not to verify it with other sources before adding that nugget of information into your accepted bank of knowledge.
I like it as a stepping stone. For instance, if I was looking up information on Alexander the Great's conquests, it would give me key words and basic ideas that I could then search for using other resources.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When this appeared in Nature it was in the magazine section and was not published as a scholarly paper. Obviously, this is big distinction and there are different standards. It is fairly easy to see in the print version that these are different sections. I'm not saying they shouldn't have done a better job, just that the standards not the same as research paper published in Nature.
Part of the problem with citing wikipedia for school work is that you're demonstrating that you're not learning part of what they are trying to teach you, namely how to critically evaluate a source. And a wikipedia article that doesn't list its sources (so you could go use them instead) should fail that test every time. Its also important to realize that part of the point of having you look sources up is to teach you to use the library and all of its resources.
I would think as well that wikipedia probably has a greater range of quality than a traditional encyclopedia. Simply since you can't go fix up a printed page later. Although its best articles may be up to the same standard.
----------
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Fair 'nuff. Although I think science academics tend to dislike Wikipedia as a source as well, as you want to cite primary literature whenever possible in scientific papers. It's not an issue of who gets the credit, it's an attempt to use as pure a source of data as possible- if you're citing a review (or, god forbid, a textbook/ encyclopedia) in your paper, your information is already filtered through at least one other author's viewpoint. Citing the original research limits bias to the actual original authors, and generally raw data isn't something you can fudge without a hundred of your peers clawing your eyes out.
I'm not sure that I agree with most of what you said. No one is going to have a problem with a review article or a textbook most of the time. Encyclopedias exist that are not general information encyclopedias (like EB is), and if you had good reason you could probably cite those aswell, although you probably shouldn't. Generally speaking, reviews and books would be cited because this allows you to point to a good collection of references that has already been compiled and vetted. The reason for citing a work is extremely important when deciding to cite it. For many things, a current paper that covers the material is good enough.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know why academia dislikes wikipedia so much. It seems like they are jealous of it, almost, if that's possible.
quote:The fact that Wikipedia is easy is a GOOD thing. The only problem I could see is if people found it to be inaccurate, and it seems that the consensus is that its accuracy is in the same range as that of other trusted sources.
From what I understand, it is not so much an issue of accuracy, it is an issue of plagerism. As JemmyGrove said, most of the information available on Wikipedia is available eslewhere, and has often been lifted directly from other internet sources. And while I agree that it having it all in one place is very convienient, it would be nice if the original author was recognized, and sources were cited more often.
I can understand the logic of lifting articles directly; after all, why would you want to go to all the time and effort to research something and writing an article from scratch when anyone can go in and change what you have written in order to win a bet or fool a co-worker.
There is also the issue of inconsistant quality. Some articles are excellent. Tsunami, for example. Others have been mentioned previously in this thread. Current events and pop culture are especially well covered and up to date. Other articles . . . well, just hit "Random Article" a few times and you will see what I mean.
Basically, I guess I am just agreeing with many on this thread. Wikipedia is good for a lot of things. As long as we are aware of its strengths and weaknesses, and use it appropriately, it's fine. And I hope more Wiki authors start citing their sources.
posted
My favorite part of Wikipedia is the "external links" section of the articles. It is a great way to find online primary source material for any given subject. It is better than Google, DMOZ, and About.com.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I understand, it is not so much an issue of accuracy, it is an issue of plagerism.
I don't see how this is more of an issue with Wikipedia than with any other reference. Could you explain?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: My favorite part of Wikipedia is the "external links" section of the articles. It is a great way to find online primary source material for any given subject. It is better than Google, DMOZ, and About.com.
posted
I think Wikipedia is great when you're looking for some quick information or a good summary of the topic. Also, as mentioned earlier, it's good for finding other sources of information.
With that said, I can only imagine the nightmare for instructors trying to grade papers that rely heavily on Wikipedia. An article can be grossly inaccurate one moment and completely correct the next. Multiple students using the exact same article can end up with completely different information.
And what's to stop a student from playing a joke and inserting a bunch of false information knowing that the rest of the students in the class might use that article? What's to stop a student from not doing any research and just saying that all his information was from a Wikipedia article and if it's wrong, well, oops, the article must have been edited incorrectly? The teacher would not be able to verify that the student had actually looked up any information.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think wikipedia:traditional reference::nutritional supplements:traditional medicine. Many will report their anecdotes of miraculous salvation, but there is no controls in place to assure consistency or accuracy.
quote: I absolutely love Wikipedia. It's my favorite site. Yes, I have found quite a few errors, but whenever Wiki gets them and knows, it gets fixed.
So everything that Wikipedia got wrong was something you already knew?
That said, as far as the Britannica in particular goes, it's annoying to have to look up most things in both the macro and micropedia. There is an index goody but I haven't figured out how to use it yet. And the only reason I have a set of britannica is because the A is actually a second C in an A cover, so the prior owners bartered it for massages.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I understand, it is not so much an issue of accuracy, it is an issue of plagerism.
I don't see how this is more of an issue with Wikipedia than with any other reference. Could you explain?
While traditional reference sources, such as Britannica, do not always give the name of an aritcle's author, said author was most likely hired to write the article in question, and has given permission to Britannica to publish the article. If someone, other than the author himself, lifts the article from another source and posts it on Wikipedia without the author's consent or permission, especially without giving credit, this is plagerism. I am not saying that this is the case with all Wikipedia articles. I am saying that this is a flaw in Wikipedia's structure. If anyone is allowed to edit or create an article, there is no way to stop some people from copying and pasting.
I agree about the "external links" section being important. I am much more likely to trust a Wiki article which give external links, or cites references.
Incidentally, the quality of articles I found by pushing "Random Article" this morning was greatly improved from those I found last night.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just spent a bit of time reading the biographies of various Congresspeople on Wikipedia and I have to say I hope no one is going to be voting this November based on that information.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I'm not entirely sure I understand is when did encyclopedias get raised to such a high standard. It's not like, at least in my opinio, they were reasources full of accuracy and comprehensive information such that the wiki is such a degraded step down.
I trying to come up with a good analogy. How about, it's like decrying reality programming as not being up to the standard of tv sitcoms.
If you're using an encyclopedia or wikipedia as a central source for a paper anywhere after like 4th grade, either your teachers have failed to teach you correctly or you've failed to learn.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
