Wikipedia as a History Reference?

Question

Does it bother you that the CIA and the Vatican edit Wikipedia references - in particular those dealing with History or Current Events? Have you read about Virgil Grifith's "Wikiscanner" yet?

No Spurs Fan, it does not bother me. In fact I as a "regular person" edited a Wiki post on Nicaragua's elections that surely read like a CIA edit.

Answer 1

I think wikepedia is great for references such things as numbers, statistics and figures, simple solid facts but possibly not a good reference where opinions are involved. Opinions seem to play a large part in the whole deal here. For instance they may state that x number of rifles were produced and I would be inclined to believe it but then their judgement on its combat effectiveness I would not agree on. This would be just an example of just about any question you could ask.

Answer 2

I think it's a great first step. It provides enough basic information for someone to go ahead and do further research. Wikipedia gets a lot of flak from educators, and I think that's ridiculous because, like any learning tool, it has its merits and its flaws. There are great resources on Wikipedia, and I dismiss the academic snobbery toward the project. It is like any other resource--it is not perfect and it is sometimes accurate. Tell me what book is? I have encouraged my students to use it, but I tell them how to use it and what its limitations can be.

When I first became aware of Wikipedia--actually, before that when there was a lot of discussion about books being made available electronically--the first thing that came to mind was a slow elision of parts of history. It was always clear to me that "judicious editing" would become commonplace. And it is. But way back when the monks were transcribing the bible, some of them, for whatever reason--probably boredom--inserted or deleted text. While it's obviously more pervasive, and much easier to do now, the whims of certain individuals have always determined how "true" any text will be. And taking that to its logical conclusion, no text is true.

Answer 3

I don't care - I think most of us know that "Wiki" is not a scholarly, refereed source. I look for 'factoids' to verify something I already know about, like "was the 'Korean War' a war?" "Was the 'Vietnam War' a war?" The answer of course is 'no' to both; the US Congress did not make a formal Declaration of War against any entity in either case. These conflicts are both correctly referred to as a 'Police Action'.

These are examples of 'factoids' - for which a 'quick and dirty search' in Wiki is acceptable. Of course, one would never cite Wiki as a source in a formal essay.

I just remember hearing something about the "Wikiscanner" on the same news story - sorry, I tuned it out (wasn't listening). I know what Wiki can and can't do, and that's all that is important.

Answer 4

Generally I would not use Wikipedia as a reference for anything as it can be edited by almost anyone with an opinion. The best reference encyclopedia would be the "Britannica". Colliers is acceptable for many Americans but is still not as good as the Britannica.

Answer 5

Does it bother you, that regular people can sign up for an account to edit Wikipedia?

It isn't a reliable source. I don't let my students use it as a reference anymore, there are many items that are incorrect.

Answer 6

I guess I look at wikipedia as more "mind candy". I have a Wikipedia account, but don't use it. It's for this reason that I would not trust it as a source. I won't let my kids site it as reference for school.

Answer 7

wikipedia is good 4 num and stats and some dates. i did not know about the cia input i have heard it is an open source site

Answer 8

you got to be kidding.