Why don't college professors like Wikipedia?

Question

I think it's a much more reliable source than it gets credit for.

Answer 1

wikipedia is a GREAT starting place for research, but it shows that you put no time whatsoever into researching a topic.

shows that you are lazy.

sometimes it DOES give great info, but it is NOT recognized by the academic community (yet) -- therefore, it's not an acceptable source.

it is true that any obviously bogus info will be removed within an hour of being posted, but more crafty bogus info (that only experts would recognize -- and so would never make it into real journals etc) can slip by easily..

for instance, i wrote the entry for immanuel kant's moral philosophy -- and i KNOW that i'm not an expert in the field, and anyone who's been published would probably see things that are needing work in my entry --- but because these people use their time to work on academic journals and not on wikipedia, my elementary entry has been up there for over a year now, totally unchanged...

that's the real-life example as to why wikipedia is a good place to start but is a total BS citation
------------------------------------------

edit: actually, i just checked, and someone has (within the last month or two) changed my entry to no longer be even as accurate as i had it, lol... so there ya go. and it's been up for a bit now.

Answer 2

I would guess that it is because anyone can write the text in Wikipedia, just like anyone can write on this web site.

Wikipedia is good for generalized information that would act as a starting point. So if I were to type in the "Battle of Hastings" I would get a lot of information, probably very accurate. But, I'd be hesitant to put it in a paper because one honestly doesn't know how accurate it is.

As a starting point however, you can use it as an outline and corroborate it with other sources.

If you do use Wikipedia, especially for controversial subjects, you must take into account the sources the site uses. I often check the footnotes and review those links. Often there will be no source and so how do you know it is accurate.

Wikipedia is very good and is probably very accurate, but there are always saboteurs and the ignorant who can contribute.

All in all, I'd give Wikepedia a 90 out of 100. The 90 is due to the idea that the more persons contribute the more accurate something is, just like a market which tends to generally find the accurate price on an item the more bidders and askers there are. Still, there are times the market is wrong, and so it might be with Wikipedia.

After all, look at all those internet stocks that were bid up ten years ago when they were worth nothing.

So, I'd be somewhat wary and give it a deduction of 10 points.

Answer 3

The reason why educators do not want their students to use the website Wikipedia is because they believe that the website is not always creditable since anyone can edit an article without knowing anything about the article. I use the website; however, I would only use the external websites they post about a subject if doing a research report. I do use the website but I sometimes do not find it always to be creditable. For example, I am considering relocating to Charlotte, North Carolina in the future and I wrote to this once city that Wikipedia said was in the metropolitan Charlotte Area when the city is located four hours East near the coast of North Carolina and now I have every relator in this city sending me information thinking I want to move to this location which I do not plan to relocate to. Overall, I think that Wikipedia is creditable, but I would not use it for a research report.

Answer 4

Even my high school teachers don't allow us to use wikipedia as a research source. I used to think that it's a free online encyclopedia kind of thing but it's actually not. Anyone can go and start writing about stuff and they don't have any creditability to prove their knowledge. Articles can be inaccurate and still can be posted in some occasions. Personally I still use it for personal preference but not as a cited source because it's easy to read and understand, but you should really pay attention to the articles because sometimes they're biased.

Answer 5

although it doesn't always get the credit it deserves, collge professors don't like wikipedia because it isn't really an academic source. people can go in and edit the content of the information however they so choose, and it isn't peer edited. the information could potentially be totally incorrect. while i agree with you that it isn't given credit where credit is due, it's probably better to use books and articles to reference papers, but i use wikipedia all the time to gather basic info and help me get started on a topic

Answer 6

I think what professors frown on is that lazy people will only go to one source. You should always get a second opinion or more. I have used wiki to answer questions on this site. I have used it as a base for research because it gives you a great starting point. If time permits when answering homework questions on this site, I sometimes add another link.
Thorough research is the key!

Answer 7

what's incredibly humorous to me is that maximum individuals do no longer understand that anybody - actually anybody - can edit a wikipedia website. maximum of highschool and faculty scholars (and grandma's and grandpa's new to the WWW) assume that wikipedia is the authoritative definition of something. it extremely isn't any longer, in actuality, it extremely is the severe opposite. My 7 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous can open the internet at residing house, astonishing now, and alter the definition of "cellular telephone" to "something that tastes reliable with ketchup". it extremely is purely quite a number of individuals's junk - no longer possibly from now on useful, nor worse, than an information superhighway opinion communicate board. stay removed from wikipedia ... Spend approximately an extra 2.5 minutes on google, till you hit upon an internet site it extremely is committed purely on your subject count and would not unfold itself so skinny, and is actual written via professionals on-factor.

Answer 8

1. it's not reliable...a lot of the information on there is false

It is trying to improve its image, however, anyone can pretty much still go on that site and write whatever they want for an entry, change entries, etc. I believe you now have to be a member or logon somehow to change things, but still, who's to say the info there is correct in the first place?

Answer 9

Because not everthing on wikipedia is true, if I use wikipedia, I always check the information against other sites as well as books on what ever the subject.

Answer 10

IT good as a starting point but I would check anything I use in a paper three times before using it. ANYONE can change information on Wiki. Thats why professors dont like it.