I bet you're well liked, that's not a very good job teaching though... I would make them at least check the Wikipedia sources and make sure there is a primary source there but if you're doing that you might as well just use another website...
@Blasphemy is Fun, Unless its an assignment requiring peer-reviewed scholarly sources, Wikipedia isnt worse than any other website.
Sure, any idiot can edit it. But any idiot can make their own website or publish an article too.
@T3hHappyEmo, I mean it's much worse than primary sources that you verify... in what way is it not worse than those? You just said anybody can edit it, I wasn't saying choose another random website.
@Blasphemy is Fun, Do you purchase scientific journals to get the real primary source? Or do you use an aggregate telling you what was in the journal?
@T3hHappyEmo, Me personally? I usually use journals that have been published online, most often ones that you have to purchase normally but that have been made free by my college.
@Blasphemy is Fun, Considering it says "teacher" and not professor, I figured we were only talking about High School at most
@T3hHappyEmo, Yeah, you asked about me though. In High school I would search for peer reviewed journals published online. Or literally just primary sources that were easily verified. Wikipedia can be correct and is the majority of the time, it's just that since anyone can edit it, it's also wrong quite a bit.
@Blasphemy is Fun, actually, mods have to review every edit now against a primary source that you submit
@Blasphemy is Fun, Wikipedia is a great place to start. Like a regular encyclopedia, it often provides a general overview of the topic and cites sources which can then be verified simply by reading the source material. The whole “anyone can edit it” thing was more of an issue back in like 2004 when those edits would remain on the page for days or weeks at a time. Back then, my friend and I edited our high school’s Wikipedia page to say that we were notable graduates that had gone on to fame and fortune from such things as beer pong world champions and real-life Indiana Joneses. It lasted about 3 days.
@WifitheRouter, well I don't know why you downvoted me but Wikipedia still gets a lot of false information that can last for hours or days. I totally agree that it's lessened severely and I even said that as long as you check the sources and make sure they're reliable it can be a fine source, it's just that not a lot of people do that and if you're checking the sources you may as well just site those rather than citing a website that got it's info from them.
@Blasphemy is Fun, I have a friend like you and everyone hates them. Just because it's how you do stuff doesn't make it anymore right than anyone else's way. You just had facts thrown at you and you still disregard them. And if you're using sources through a college data base, do you go through the works cited and figure out who wrote certain parts of quotes in journals? And are you citing those separately as well? No professor or even teacher is going to expect you to spend an equal amount of time on finding sources as writing a 10 page paper. It makes no logical sense.
@Captain Doobie, lol are you in college? Because that's exactly what my professors expect. Also I'm genuinely curious, what facts did I ignore? I'll address them right now.
@Blasphemy is Fun, actually yes I am in college. And the fact that everything has to reviewed before it is published into a wiki page should be proof enough that you're not right. I realize you were brought up on the belief that Wikipedia isn't an alright source to use because I was too. But that was back when you COULD change anything you wanted and it didn't have a proofing system. Your professors make you dig through all of the sources to make you feel productive when in reality it doesn't make sense because the school should have reviewed the sources already if they're laying claim to the work or wanting students to use those sources.
@Captain Doobie, Well I can't make a claim on the current system of uploading content to Wikipedia because I don't edit it myself. However I wasn't ignoring that statement, I was saying that whatever system is currently in place there is still a ton of misinformation on Wikipedia. Once again, the majority of info is correct but there is a lot of incorrect information. If you don't believe me that's okay, I'm just telling you what I know from experience. When I search for topics that are slightly less known (something you do quite often for research papers or essays) I will sometimes come across false info on Wikipedia. Obviously I can't send you any links because I don't remember the specific pages and even if I did they'd probably be corrected by now but they weren't correct when I needed them. Sorry if you hate me lol but I'm just stating what I know to be true.
@Blasphemy is Fun, Nah I feel like I'd get along with you in all reality. Everything is going to have flaws and everything is going to get wrong information in some form or another. Just because I'm a 4.0 student doesn't make my work any more true than someone who was a 3.0 student that is typing up internet pages or writing books. We just have a tendency to believe them no matter what because of the society we live in. And if we're writing papers than we should have a good enough grasp on the topic at hand that we should know what could be right or not. Everything on the internet isn't true no matter how bad we want it to be and everything is going to have its own flaws.
@Captain Doobie, yeah we'd most likely get along, I do love a good debate... on that note though.... Everything has the potential to be false however if Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even if it now has to be checked by somebody else (I'm assuming that person is just another user?) Wikipedia has a greater potential for false information than research papers or articles that have been published by a scientific journal or university. I mean think about it, some 12 year old on Wikipedia writes that Barney is the president of Nauru, and another 12 year old just okays it (I'm not saying that happens a lot but it's way more of a possibility than false info getting published in actual scholarly sources). Not a lot of people are searching for Nauru (that's a country by the way) so it could take hours or days to correct it. You'd have to be unlucky to look it up during that time but it's not unfeasible.
@Blasphemy is Fun, Personally I don’t know why you’re being attacked so much for stating the truth. It’s not that Wikipedia isn’t a great start towards getting a sense of what a topic is, it’s that it is impossible to truly verify everything it says as truth. It will never be always reliable because it has so much data that is inhumanly possible for us to fact check it all in depth.
People are claiming that since wikipedia now has verifiers working for them, it fixes the problem of reliability, but it doesn’t necessarily work like that. Who are these people who fact check? What are their credentials? How does Wikipedia know that they are who they say they are, For every. Single. Topic. Wikipedia has to offer? This is the problem with Wiki and it’s no ones fault, just an accepted consequence of how the site is run.
@Blasphemy is Fun, https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Ironically in study, Wikipedia proves just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm don't think Wikipedia should be the sole source, but it must be referenced as a starting point for any student. It's an incredible free recourse that contains the aggregate of nearly all human knowledge. Honestly it should get government funding
@airguitarpro, Yeah I agree, I don't think I'm being attacked though, just having a friendly debate with old Cap. Doobs. I'm always up for a debate, although I think this point is pretty cut and dry.
@Blasphemy is Fun, ah I was more referencing an opening remark by cap when he said “I have a friend like you and everyone hates him,” I love debate, but I’m not a fan of when people use ad hominem.
@airguitarpro, yeah that was a d*ck move, I agree. Seemed like he changed his tune though which was appreciated.
I don't get why everybody has a hate-on for wikipedia.... anybody can edit the information, but before it is changed, it has to be reviewed and cited. So yes, what's on Wikipedia is abiut as reliable as fact as anywhere else. And it's much easier to read, articles are linked together, and the format is simple to understand.
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, I think it's because Wikipedia is so often unreliable. Since anybody can edit information, false info can get in pretty frequently. People make it a game to falsify information, there was a decent amount of time that Wikipedia cited Leigh Daniel Avidan (Danny Sexbang) as the excavator of the Qumran Caves. If you use primary sources and verify they're legitimacy you don't run that risk. I actually like Wikipedia but you should always check the sources and most people don't do that. I can't tell you how many times I've read something that doesn't seem quite right and the source is some two bit blog. That's just what I think.
@Blasphemy is Fun, but like I said, the information has to be verified and cited before it can be changed. And information requiring more verification has a footnote stating "citation needed".
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, when you're writing a paper though you're supposed to be trying to get the most accurate information. As for the reviewing info bit, my English teacher used to change things on wiki to make them bizzarely wrong and it wouldn't be changed back for weeks. Personally, I use wiki for the things the people editing site.
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, Wikipedia is a great starting point. But it shouldn't be your only resource. True story: a kid in my English class in high school was reading aloud his book report and after he sat down, the teacher called him out on not reading the book and using Wikipedia's summary because there were major plot details that were missing and some were just wrong.
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, like the other guy said wikipedia can be wrong at times but can also be correct. The best thing to do is use wikipedia to find reliable sources and quote or reference that instead of wikipedia
Most teachers and professors I had didn't allow it as a source because it wasn't a primary or secondary source. Just as they wouldn't have allowed me to use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source.
@Dillusionist, the ironic thing is, primary data is very hard to come by unless you do it yourself. Even then professors doesn't like it.
All the readings have references to multiple sources therefor making it secondary data and applied theories from other therorist.
Go example, I couldn't find any primary data on how bees make honey, but I found a book but they just got a bunch of other books and consolidated the information into their own argument and words. So I went to the books references and that reference had other references. Couldn't trace back to the primary data.
@hasher22 , they allowed secondary sources. It's the tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias and Wikipedia that they didn't like.
More credible than the WSJ
Wikipedia states their own sources with the small index hyperlink, copying that down is as easy as writing "Wikipedia" as your source