Is it wrong to write a research paper-BIOlogy that is, and source wikeidia as a cite?...?

Question

I know in other searches we aren't suppose to use it, but with what I was looking, i found it.

Answer 1

wikipedia, as informative as it is, can not be considered an authoritative source. Anyone can post information on wikipedia...at least that's what I think.

Answer 2

First, I'm glad you asked this question instead of just ripping off potentially unreliable info from the web, which may also be plagiarized from other sources.

I've recently failed a student for plagiarizing from wikipedia. While it is always best to cite something rather than not, see comments by other posters about the potential perils of using wikipedia and other online sources. It isn't an authority for a science report if you aren't using peer-reviewed literature. You should go straight to the source, especially if you aspire to be in any kind of science.

As for the grad students using it-it is very worrisome that you don't know better at this stage in your academic career. You should be in grad school to learn how to be an independent thinker, to critically evaluate information, and to learn the value of scientific research and research efforts.

Answer 3

No you cannot cite Wikipedia.

In a biology report you should only cite peer reviewed information. This means that someone that is also a scientist has looked at the information and OK'ed it.

Your biology book is said to be reviewed and you can search journals.

TO CHEAT A LITTLE. Use Wikippedia but use the citations that the writers used at the pottom of the article. This is technically plagarism so make sure you use all your own words.

Answer 4

The idea of citing a reference in a research paper is to be able to skip a proof (or ten) while your readers are still happy with your scientific rigor.

For example, if you want to show that one species is related to another in some way, you can try to show all the steps yourself, or cite some other paper where the steps have been shown.

A peer-reviewed scientific paper has had all its steps verified by experts. So that if you cite it, the readers of your paper will be more easily convinced that skipping the ten steps is OK because experts have checked them, or, if they insist, they can go and check the work of the author you are citing (and blame him if he is wrong... ;-) ).

Very often, this cannot be done with information in Wikipedia (or in most encyclopedias or dictionaries).

However, the more serious articles in Wiki will show references at the bottom, and you can go and check them to see if one does explain what you are trying to cite. If that is the case, then you can cite that source.

When I cite Wiki, I usually also explain that I have checked the information somewhere else (and I show where).

For example, in trying to show how much energy binary neutron stars emit as gravitational waves, the equation that is shown in Wiki is much easier to use. So I use it (and say that I've found it in Wiki) but I also explain that I have checked it against another equation published by an expert in a peer-reviewed paper -- except that his equation is far more difficult to use (he uses triple derivatives while the equation in Wiki has all the derivatives worked out).

Answer 5

Back in December, I met with the founder and CEO of Wikipedia. What's interesting is that Wikipedia is one of the most peer reviewed databases in the world. Peer reviewed sources can be used in research, but Wikipedia has too large of a peer population to be considered professional and credible. There are many layers of filtering, flagging, correcting, authorizing, etc. to make sure that confidence in Wikipedia is maintained.

I believe that there is an overall uncertainty about Wikipedia that mirrors the validity of Web 2.0. I also believe that this uncertainty mirrors our societies reluctance with the letting go of a authoritian philosophy where black and white still exist. Web 2.0 introduces an emergent philosophy, just as Second Life is being used by new companies to predict potential market interest in new products (Forbes, 2007).

What's interesting is that a PhD dissertation is approved by a roundtable of experts in the designated field. Essentially, a peer reviewed origional contribution to mankind. A dissertation is the height of research, the accomplishment of the terminal degree.

Therefore, the validation of credible research sources comes down to the verification of worthy levels of education by the author and their peers.

Bottom line, find the origional source that was cited by the author of wikis to determine its reliability and validity to your research.

Answer 6

Yes, it's a problem if you are not in elementary school. Wikipedia is a good place to find information when you begin a search, but it should not be cited. In addition, you should not cite a normal enyclopedia.

Answer 7

It relies upon on your instructor and your person very own decision. usually in case you provide credit to the persons you're pointing out (interior the paper) then it somewhat is okay to comprise the quotation on the top of the paper (yet no longer consistently). ex. in accordance to NBC information the dow jones is gradually declining. (right here the source and archives is placed at the same time so putting the quotation on the top could be ok...in ordinary terms an straightforward occasion). the choice of putting the source interior the paper is often reserved for papers that use bit and snippets of information, yet would not inevitably flat out tell the reader who's to blame for the information being presented (yet this is no longer consistently the case). In-text cloth citations are often much less complicated to study and comprehend because of the fact the quotation is on the top of each and every paragraph. i could recommend asking the instructor what he or she prefers.

Answer 8

Don't use it, but scroll to the bottom and use the sources that the Wikipedia article cites.

Answer 9

I'm a grad student in biology and I've used wikipedia as a source several times.

Answer 10

no. it's controlled by users for one thing, so teachers don't trust it as a source. plus, encyclopedia information is considered general knowledge and should not be cited.