Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

So I got a paper back today, and out of 24 footnotes, 1 of them was Wikipedia. And I got this comment on the bottom of that page:

"I have grave reservations about citing this service in an academic paper and I think the bottom line is it should not be done. I also refer to it to clear up a point of trivia from time to time - but Wikipedia is often mistaken. You undermine your authority by basing any part of your argument on it."

I think he's overreacting, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Sukahii16]

Since Wikipedia is mainly updated by random people, it would be best to follow their citations rather than Wikipedia in and of itself. Hope it didn't get counted against you too hard but I think your grader is right in this regard. Internet sources aren't the most reliable available.

 

[Dilbert]

So I got a paper back today, and out of 24 footnotes, 1 of them was Wikipedia. And I got this comment on the bottom of that page:

"I have grave reservations about citing this service in an academic paper and I think the bottom line is it should not be done. I also refer to it to clear up a point of trivia from time to time - but Wikipedia is often mistaken. You undermine your authority by basing any part of your argument on it."

I think he's overreacting, but maybe that's just me.

I think he's right. Since it is not configuration controlled and changes over time, how can you be sure that the information you cite is a) correct and b) will be available at some future point?

There's also the issue of not being able to verify the authority of the information provider, although that's a bit less of a concern.

 

[itschris]

I think he's right. Since it is not configuration controlled and changes over time, how can you be sure that the information you cite is a) correct and b) will be available at some future point?

Well, there's no way to be certain of a), but Wikipedia does store all versions in an article's history. So technically you could specifically link to a particular version rather than the article in general.

 

[Dilbert]

Well, there's no way to be certain of a), but Wikipedia does store all versions in an article's history. So technically you could specifically link to a particular version rather than the article in general.

I haven't spent much time on Wikipedia, but I thought that changes were displayed in realtime, but they were only officially admitted to a "version" after review by the page owner/expert. If so, then it's possible the content you see at some time t wouldn't even be deemed worthy of inclusion in an archived "baseline."

 

[Ristamar]

I agree with jinx. I'd have to side with the professor.

 

[Phoenix]

Considering the 'verification' of Wikipedia data, while its useful for getting the basic fact down its probably not valid enough for academic papers. I too would side with the prof in this case.

 

[itschris]

I haven't spent much time on Wikipedia, but I thought that changes were displayed in realtime, but they were only officially admitted to a "version" after review by the page owner/expert. If so, then it's possible the content you see at some time t wouldn't even be deemed worthy of inclusion in an archived "baseline."

Well, any time a change is made to an article, the main (there isn't really an "official" version, and there are no page owners or resident experts to verify everything (although I'm sure some experts actually do contribute, there's no way to know for any particular article)) version is immediately changed as well. The previous version is added to the history page, where you can view all versions of the article back to the beginning.

I probably wouldn't use a Wikipedia article either. They can be good starting points for general information and to see their sources, though.

 

[Mejilan]

They are most definitely not a legitimate source for serious research.

 

[pops619]

Well, I'd only consider it an overreaction if he marked you down to any significant degree for using Wikipedia as one source out of 24. That said, it really isn't an acceptable source. Encyclopedias in general generally aren't acceptable sources for a paper. If "professional" encyclopedias aren't, why would Wikipedia? It's a good site to learn things and to clear stuff up, like your teacher says, but I would never think of using it as a source.

 

[BigJonsson]

Wikipedia is a GOLD MINE

Was so useful for studying for my exams this year lol

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah. See for all the goodness that is Wikipedia, the Wiki system on which it is based makes Wikipedia pretty much one big ass blog (simplification). Since there is no independent verification of anything and not really any mandatory review nor oversight, you just can't rely on it. Plus if you cite it as a source, what you're citing can change at any time.

 

[MetatronM]

Wikipedia is a pretty decent reference for quick info (I actually used it to look up a couple things on my last major research paper earlier this week), but I would never ever think of citing it.

 

[Tarazet]

Yeah, feel free to use it for research, but don't cite it and maybe even more importantly, don't quote it!! Same for Dictionary.com...

 

[cvxfreak]

1 out of 24 isn't so bad. I can understand that a college professor wouldn't want anyone to use it as a primary source, at the same time, I think he went a teeny bit overboard with that comment.

 

[fart]

OH. MY. GOD.

 

[Blackace]

1 out of 24.. and people are saying the professor is right????

 

[Rorschach]

1 out of 24.. and people are saying the professor is right????

It's not like all 24 were being referenced for the same information.

 

[Blackace]

It's not like all 24 were being referenced for the same information.

But they should all be building to an overall point... a theme if you will..

 

[belgurdo]

I can't see why the prof would flip out because you used one wiki ref in your entire paper and all but said "ZOMG RUINED! YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!", but Wiki tends to be hit-or-miss with its accuracy thanks to the whole "ordinary people update it" thing. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use it though

 

[iapetus]

To be fair, there are plenty of print resources that are equally non-credible - there are vast numbers of books and academic papers out there that are written by someone with an agenda to push and there's no require for peer review to get published in most cases. With Wikipedia it's just more obvious.

Personally I'd use it and cite it, and argue the case back at the professor, provided it wasn't being used as a definitive source of facts, and rather as part of a series of citations pointing towards the same conclusion.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't think he received a failing mark because of the Wikipedia reference. All the prof said was that you shouldn't use it in an academic paper. The prof admits that he uses it as a source of trivia, and clearly says that Wikipedia is "often mistaken" as a foundation for his beliefs that it shouldn't be used. He finally sums it up simply saying "you undermine your authority" by using it. I think what he said made sense and is perfectly fair. There is no evidence presented that suggests that this Wikipedia use had any impact on a grade or anything, just that its use as an academic reference point shouldn't be done again.

 

[goodcow]

Well I got a 94 on the paper, so I don't think the Wikipedia reference hurt me, but I don't think it warranted a paragraph of text next to the footnote either.

 

[scorcho]

it really depends on what type of paper this was. for fully annotated research papers (which is what yours appears to be) wikipedia is not a valid source if used as an authoritative reference at all. the content for one is easily malliable, something which isn't the case for any type of published material. facts that appear one day could disappear the next and are very hard to substantiate. also, while not an absolute litmus test, references from more 'established' areas at the least offers a tangilbe sense of authenticity and credibility.

within my concentration (international relations) some of my teachers have even looked down upon citated journals that aren't peer reviewed.

 

[scorcho]

To be fair, there are plenty of print resources that are equally non-credible - there are vast numbers of books and academic papers out there that are written by someone with an agenda to push and there's no require for peer review to get published in most cases. With Wikipedia it's just more obvious.

Personally I'd use it and cite it, and argue the case back at the professor, provided it wasn't being used as a definitive source of facts, and rather as part of a series of citations pointing towards the same conclusion.

yes, there are a ton of printed resources that aren't credible at all, and odds are any teacher worth a damn would flag that as well.

 

[Phoenix]

Well I got a 94 on the paper, so I don't think the Wikipedia reference hurt me, but I don't think it warranted a paragraph of text next to the footnote either.

It was a warning, "Do this again and I fail your ass" :lol

 

[Nerevar]

To be fair, there are plenty of print resources that are equally non-credible - there are vast numbers of books and academic papers out there that are written by someone with an agenda to push and there's no require for peer review to get published in most cases. With Wikipedia it's just more obvious.

Personally I'd use it and cite it, and argue the case back at the professor, provided it wasn't being used as a definitive source of facts, and rather as part of a series of citations pointing towards the same conclusion.

Agreed. I can find published resources that argue for new-Earth creationism, and those are somehow more valid than a Wiki?

since Wikipedia had a serafitia entry, I'm gonna say no, as far as it being a valid source.

:lol
I stand corrected.

 

[bjork]

since Wikipedia had a serafitia entry, I'm gonna say no, as far as it being a valid source.

 

[Tarazet]

since Wikipedia had a serafitia entry, I'm gonna say no, as far as it being a valid source.

I was just about to say that. :lol

At least it's better than Urban Dictionary.

 

[scorcho]

Agreed. I can find published resources that argue for new-Earth creationism, and those are somehow more valid than a Wiki?

horrible argument as you're just comparing apples to oranges. if you're writing a paper that traces the ideological roots of creationism/intelligent design, then books that highlight both its historical (st. augustine) and current advocates are completely valid.

no one is saying that all books are better than wiki, just that certain levels of scholarly research are not applicable to it, especially in a 'research' context.

 

[Meier]

It's not a valid source for academic papers, nope. I think it's a neat reference and a fun read, but anything user-submitted is cause for concern.

 

[Nerevar]

horrible argument as you're just comparing apples to oranges. if you're writing a paper that traces the ideological roots of creationism/intelligent design, then books that highlight both its historical (st. augustine) and current advocates are completely valid.

no one is saying that all books are better than wiki, just that certain levels of scholarly research are not applicable to it, especially in a 'research' context.

No, you're misinterpreting my example. I was simply agreeing with iapetus that there are some venues where an individual can publish a paper with no oversight, yet no one will ever question the citation of those sources, but a wiki is considered an invalid source. My issue deals more with how teachers / reviewers break down source citations. Simply because you're a citing a source that is a wiki doesn't mean it is a poor resource - the individual article you are citing needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

 

[maharg]

There is a long term plan to create an expert-reviewed version of Wikipedia as a frozen copy, but right now it's obviously not. There are definitely a lot of what you might call amature experts, as well as real experts, who basically just watch the recent change list for the whole site and look at changes in areas they know about and correct them (along with vandalism) which can make some articles very very accurate.

You can usually tell if an article is meeting any kind of standard by reading its talk page.

Also, someone else said this already, but no version of a wikipedia page ever goes away. You can load it at any point in its history.

That said, at this point, I wouldn't use it. But I don't think that's a permanent thing. It needs more experts, but eventually I think it may end up being an authoritative source for some things. If more academics actually contributed and helped make it better instead of worrying about it being unauthoritative, it would probably be closer to that point.

 

[scorcho]

No, you're misinterpreting my example. I was simply agreeing with iapetus that there are some venues where an individual can publish a paper with no oversight, yet no one will ever question the citation of those sources, but a wiki is considered an invalid source. My issue deals more with how teachers / reviewers break down source citations. Simply because you're a citing a source that is a wiki doesn't mean it is a poor resource - the individual article you are citing needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

i still say you're comparing apples to oranges. a book on creationism that's published independently/without oversight/ideologically tinged is more akin to a personal webspace or blog where an individual from any measure of society can rant in absence of facts or dissenting views.

sources like wiki attempt to mirror established printed, academically reviewed resource material, and as such fails because of the reasons i mentioned earlier. the fallacy of your argument in defense of wiki is such that it can likewise be used against it - i can sprout numerous 'published' websites without oversight that claim to be authoritative as well. it affects the web just as much as print, if not more so since the 'entry price' for web publishing is vastly lower than print.

my biggest argument against wiki is this - it's dangerous to expect free-market principles to lead to absolute truth, which is essentially what wiki is and does.

 

[SickBoy]

Well I got a 94 on the paper, so I don't think the Wikipedia reference hurt me, but I don't think it warranted a paragraph of text next to the footnote either.

I'd think of it as a courtesy. If he feels that way, there are probably other profs who agree, or even feel more strongly about it and would be apt to do some serious grade-chopping.

 

[lilraylewis]

Yeah, feel free to use it for research, but don't cite it and maybe even more importantly, don't quote it!! Same for Dictionary.com...

I readily agree that opening a paper with, "Dictionary.com defines X as..." should not be done, but why can't you cite it if, for example, you used it to find a word's etymology? What's disreputable about the site?

 

[SickBoy]

Just as a note, I don't think anyone should ever start a written, spoken, or any other work with "*blank* defines *blank* as *blank*"

 

[scorcho]

Just as a note, I don't think anyone should ever start a written, spoken, or any other work with "*blank* defines *blank* as *blank*"

unless you're using it as a rhetorical device

 

[Father_Brain]

Wikipedia is a great site (what other encyclopedia has articles on Gunstar Heroes, Dragostea Din Tei, and All Your Base?), but I have to agree that its nature makes it questionable as an academic source.

 

[Tarazet]

I readily agree that opening a paper with, "Dictionary.com defines X as..." should not be done, but why can't you cite it if, for example, you used it to find a word's etymology? What's disreputable about the site?

It isn't particularly disreputable, but given a choice, I avoid citing websites altogether. I don't like opening the door for criticism, in any way, when my grade's on the line.

 

[belgurdo]

It isn't particularly disreputable, but given a choice, I avoid citing websites altogether. I don't like opening the door for criticism, in any way, when my grade's on the line.

I openly use websites for citations in my papers, although I've never been called or questioned on for doing so yet (lol community college ) I see it as being as viable a research tool as an old book is (and old books and journals can be filled as much bullshit as the Net, as someone has said previously)

 

[fart]

Wikipedia should not be cited as a scholarly source in a scholarly paper. It's a community maintained (by a mostly anonymous community I might add) encyclopedia-blog for god's sake. Unless you're using it as evidence of popular opinion at a certain time (and even then, it's pretty specious reasoning), or as primary evidence of the state of Wikipedia at a given time (get it?), it's an absolutely ridiculous source, with so little integrity that it will suck any integrity your paper might otherwise have and blow it into the void of stupidity.

Keep in mind this isn't true of websites in general, but there's this naive assumption of single party control with most websites, where you recognize that so and so website is published by so and so party with such and such scholarly integrity, and all that totally breaks down when the party becomes a total anarchy of the internet population.

 

[Sergenth]

1. Use Wikipedia to learn stuff to your mind's content, but don't cite. It's supposed to be common knowledge. Put it in a separate list of research or source material, as if you are offering an additional aid to your reader.

2. Only include citations from people you agree with. This will make you seem more correct!

3. No Free Indoctrination -- If there are opposing opinions, mention them briefly and riducule them, but never cite. You want the opposition to fall into the unrecorded void of history after all.

4. If the opposition is already too famous to be forgotten, use citations to destroy their credibility; for instance, to show that they have held two opposite opinons and that they are intrinsicly hypocritical... and smelly.... and dumb.