Why do most people NOT seem to know that Wikipedia is NOT a good source of information on anything?

Question

ANYONE can post information on Wikipedia. Students should not use it to write research papers; no one should consult it except for general information about a topic - and then recognize that the information could be wrong or misleading.

Answer 1

Misinformation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misinformation is information that is incorrect, but not because of a deliberate attempt to mislead. Believers in misinformation are said to be misinformed but not lying. It is commonly confused with disinformation. The spreading of dis-information is a purposeful attempt to spread a known falsehood, whereas mis-information is the result of ignorance (compare [1] with [2]).

Often, misinformation comes from sources that may not be very careful with their research, or have poor communication skills. They may not have picked out biases and may even have interpreted a white lie incorrectly. Overall, this leads to people confusing fact with fiction and can be fairly troublesome at some times.

OR

Gullibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term gullibility refers to the state of being easily deceived. Someone who fits into this category is said to be gullible. There are several causes of gullibility. The person may be naive, have some form of learning difficulty or may display gullibility as a result of wishful thinking.

Good Luck....

Answer 2

As far as I can figure, there are two things about wikipedia that students really like:

1) It is a popular, well-known website that gives information...so maybe its a good source?

2) It takes the form of an online encyclopedia, which students are ready to assume is correct.

I think that teachers who teach research need to stress that most online sources are junk. It would also be good if schools could keep history and English teachers up to date, so that they would actually know about wikipedia and not allow kids to use it in research.

I am judging a History Day competition - almost every single competitor, including those with projects heading into the state finals, used wikipedia as a source. No one has told them why its not a good source.

Answer 3

Appropriate research methods aren't always taught, and aren't always enforced. Wikipedia isn't a bad place to start, but students should be encouraged to use it simply to harvest key words to perform searches on legit. databases (such as JSTOR); some articles, too, have links at the bottom which will take them to more credible sources of information.

Instead of banning wikipedia completely, as many did with google or any online source (even if it were simply a .pdf of a scholarly article), it should be incorporated into workshops on research methods. Teachers just end up looking "out of the loop" to their younger students, something we all seem to face anyway.

Answer 4

It is not that many students don't know, it is that they don't care and want the easy way out. When you type in a general subject, Wikipedia often is one of the top sites listed...it is just too easy to click on something that appears to be a legitimate site and use that information to get by...

Answer 5

No, do not have faith it. it is not sturdy. as far as a source of historic counsel, Wikipedia can, in Dan ok's words, be biased and fully incorrect. I observed that for myself as quickly as I examine some counsel approximately Nicaragua. approximately 4 weeks in the past, I examine how a individual had traced the editors of specific Wikipedia pages to the two the CIA and the Vatican. To me it made multiple experience - because of the fact it continues to be interior the CIA (and the Vatican's) pastimes to disclaim the revolution and democratic elections of the Sandinistas (FSLN) in Nicaragua.

Answer 6

Reason? Ignorance.
Wikipedia kinda sounds like encyclopedia so some people automatically think it's reliable. A lot of times ppl use it b/c they really don't know that it's not a good source. that's all i got

Answer 7

It's definitely good to get the gist of something, but I would never cite it as a reliable source. I changed an article once to reflect my opinion on an important issue that I felt was left too vague, and gave the wrong impression about something.

You could get in there and change William Shatner's middle name to Cupcake if you wanted. In fact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shatner#Biography


See! See how unreliable it is!!!?

Answer 8

Because it is on the internet and it is cool. It's also convenient, "easy" (lazy) and a familiar word. Not everyone knows that just anyone can go in there and delete the truth and replace it with fiction, if there was any truth to begin with. People tend to assume that computer media is like print media and just as reliable. It is up to us as teachers and parents to teach them otherwise.

Answer 9

It has become so popular that many people think it is a legitimate source for information.

Answer 10

actually, it has been used by some of the U.S. courts of justice... besides.. you can always verify the first info you find on some other web sites..can you not? (provide you are not lazy :-) )