for educational research at the post-graduate level? I have to do a presentation on Rudolf Steiner and I have access to plenty of journal articles, but I'm wondering if Wikipedia is acceptable (in the academic community) to use for basic facts/info.
2006-09-28 07:28:48 · 23 answers · asked by ChristyH 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
No. Because it can be edited and added to by anybody, it is susceptible to abuse.
2006-09-28 07:30:38 · answer #1 · answered by Duncarin 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Sadly, the open nature of Wikipedia is the reason why more and more schools are discouraging use of it for adacemia. It's just far too easy to have some jerk abuse the system and edit an article to complete inaccuracy.
Academia does not see Wikipedia as credible as other sources.
However, you can always use it as a jumping point but using it's references for specific articles.
2006-09-28 07:32:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Wikepedia allows adding information to their sources. Sometimes there is misinformation. What a great subject to report on. Rudolf Steiner was an educational innovator! So many people swear by his educational guidelines.!
2006-09-28 07:32:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i am in graduate school. what i do in a situation like that is look at what Wikipedia's references are. they list there sources and the end of the article, that can lead you to obvious other sources which might be more reputable
2006-09-28 07:33:08 · answer #4 · answered by upfromnutin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say so only if the sources listed on there are reliable sources. Some of the documents on Wikipedia are listed as needing sources.
2006-09-28 07:30:45 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
never is an open source material acceptable for use on anything upper division or higher including graduate studies. i was a reader for freshmen general history class cuz i was poor. for my undergrad senior research thesis, paper thing, if it was not a published fact, than you must support with enough evidence to defend it in front of the department chair.
2006-09-28 09:01:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Diligent pupils who prefer to not be snickered at with the help of judges will steer away from Wikipedia, because it provides not something of fee previous what extreme, stable, sturdy, professionally-written factors already furnish on a topic be counted of scientific benefit, such because of the fact the aurora borealis. in the experience that your challenge concerns something like "lolicon" or "smotherboxes", then Wikipedia is in all probability considered one of your greater advantageous factors.
2016-10-01 11:26:38 · answer #7 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even the founder of Wikipedia says that university students should not use it for research.
2006-09-28 07:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by Ravishing 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if the researce were about public opinion.
A little insight in to the mind of a PHD.
PHD's believe that the only source of real information is from other PHD's. Also, they sincerely believe the cliche' that taking text from one source is plagiarism, but from three is research.
Hence, a PHD is prone to plagiarize from 3 sources.
Enjoy your plager.....er... research. ;)
2006-09-28 07:36:08 · answer #9 · answered by Gonzo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All my teachers expressly forbid Wikepedia as a source for any research papers because anyone can change the info at any time and it is not considered reliable.
2006-09-28 07:31:44 · answer #10 · answered by orphanannie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most legitimate articles in wikipedia reference other sources. It might be better to track down and reference those sources.
2006-09-28 07:31:18 · answer #11 · answered by Privratnik 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋