I ask because I read an article that was talking about how some academics are getting upset because "just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true" which is the way they think wikipedia operates. What do you think? Is it worth using resources like wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers?
2007-04-08 10:37:15 · 13 answers · asked by The JZA 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
if you know how to use it, and have a brain in your head, wikipedia is fabulous. you have to know how to check for sources, look at the page histories and be a reasonable judge. It is as useful as many other websites which have no external mediator or editor. It is better than many, also.
2007-04-08 10:42:41 · answer #1 · answered by rosends 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
WP is not an encyclopedia, not even remotely. It is at best a consensus building tool and at worst a propaganda site. There's no editorial oversight which results in bloated articles riddled with opinions. Furthermore and most importantly, there are zealots who contribute to WP religiously - night and day - who constantly inject their own point of view or propaganda that they are passionate about, while editors who actually do extensive research - and have less time to edit war with these people - get constantly reverted. These zealots are also usually unemployed, are very young, and have no expertise in much of anything - which is probably why they have so much time to "contribute". This results in point of view articles full of errors and purposeful disinformation. The opposing views are blocked or reverted continuously back and forth, and the credible content gets lost. There's also a bureaucratic WP system with complicated rules that one must learn in order to contribute without getting banned. Otherwise, those who do know the WP system will always revert and ban those who do not - regardless of the quality or credibility of the content that is contributed by the latter. Not to mention, the criteria for credibility is so low that almost any "published " source can be cited for even the most sensitive and technical subjects - you can even use commercial websites or hearsay! Wikipedia is good for nothing except maybe the photographs - which are "supposedly" Public Domain. So, I would go buy a real Encyclopedia CD or an online subscription to one. You really do get what you pay for. And in WP's case, even though it's free, you actually pay a bigger price, either by getting an F on your paper, or by getting dumber, or making a fool of yourself when talking to people who are knowledgeable.
2007-04-09 13:19:29 · answer #2 · answered by Oguz1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is my main reference on the web
2007-04-08 17:46:28 · answer #3 · answered by fling.poop 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I use wikipedia, I noticed when I turned in a paper a while ago, the professor put, use more reliable sources.
2007-04-08 17:54:20 · answer #4 · answered by 2fine4u 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I use wikipedia, but when I use it for research, I try to find articles that say the exaxct same thing it does. I generally use wikipedia for other things.
2007-04-08 17:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, that's not how wikipedia operates
wikipedia allows ANYONE to change the information
that's why it's not reliable
i think using wikipedia is okay if you're not planning on using the info you get (essay, projects)
2007-04-08 17:40:25 · answer #6 · answered by Kelzoo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I only use it for general reading, and never for school assignments.
I suggest JSTOR and Project Muse for research assignments.
2007-04-08 17:40:18 · answer #7 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia is bitchin...and so is Yahoo! answers.
2007-04-08 17:40:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As a source it's fine, but not as your only source.
2007-04-08 17:40:47 · answer #9 · answered by the Boss 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think its pretty accurate!
2007-04-08 18:36:36 · answer #10 · answered by ntisme 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋