[BBC] Wikipedia goes down thanks to cut cables - Page 6

I agree with you mostly. Part of doing good research begins with learning to search for information. That search nearly always involves a library though be it digital or physical. Access to a large portion of journals and articles require passing through a library unless you pay a subscription fee. For someone such as myself who research is literally a job there are times when I admit defeat at finding a source and must travel to a physical library to get help. This doesn't happen often but it does happen so I wouldn't say they are archaic. At a certain level just Googling (Even Google Scholar) a topic will not get you results that are relevant and this is where learning to search a library is essential to finding something.

I'm not arguing everyone should know how to use the Dewey Decimal system (which is rarely seen except in elementary schools) or similar but rather understanding how to search a library for relevant articles and journals. The next step is teaching someone to understand what they have found as you are saying. Too many times college students read just the abstract and don't understand much more beyond that. These are generally the same ones that will actually cite Wikipedia directly as well.

Elitist scholars beware. You no longer have a stranglehold on knowledge. Enough of your snide comments. Either give CREDIBLE EVIDENCE as to where this complete disdain for wikipedia stems from, or accept the fact that times, they are-a-changin'.

A wise man once said, "Change your ways, before your ways change you".

You're talking about failing people for using Wikipedia, when you can't even discern between "cite" and "site"?



I don't understand why teachers don't just explain to their students that using sources from a wiki page can be okay.

It's simple why you can't cite Wikipedia as a source for many things. Firstly it doesn't provide much more information beyond an overview or definition of a particular topic. From grading students papers if they have cited Wikipedia only then mostly it means they didn't do much research for their topic. There in lies one of the biggest issues. Ever tried to publish a paper with one source? You would be laughed at by your educated peers and or failed.

Wikipedia is more trustworthy now that what it once was. There is some bad information there still though and I try to correct it but it doesn't always stay. Speaking from personal experience on this. Work I have done has been used to add information to a Wikitopic. It was cited at the bottom of the page as it should have been. The problem is that the person who added the information to the Wiki got it wrong. They either did not read the entire journal article I wrote it or skimmed over the hypothesis and conclusions and wrote down whatever they wanted.

There was a misunderstanding that took place when someone cited my work as a source. I wrote a paper making a claim about GPS network capabilities. Had that person read more than the abstract they would have a better understanding and would not have made that claim. This bothers me quite a bit because not only does it make me look rather bad for supposedly saying something wrong but people believe it because it is sourced to me. I've gotten emails about what was posted and I have to tell them to read the paper I wrote throughly and realize that the Wikipedia topic information is incorrect.

The information stored in Wikipedia can be correct and sourced appropriately but not a guarantee as many of you believe. Wikipedia can and very well should be a starting point for certain topics to aid in finding the information. But as a source itself; it is not. Again wonderful tool to start researching something and find sources about a topic. If you want to use information from WIkipedia just look for its source. Read the source to see if it actually matches Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is really only a catalogue of information with general descriptions of a topic that can lead you to sources not a source by itself.

I apologize for my rant here. I believe Wikipedia will direct you to good sources of information(and is a great tool for that) but the information within the wiki may not be true even it is cited. Plus for research you should always work your way through many papers to be able make a decision or statement. I.E. I just published a journal article about an experiment I conducted. To back up my reasoning for the experiment I started with Wikipedia. I got a general idea about the topic from Wikipedia. I then used the sources of that wiki article for further understanding. I then checked the sources of those sources to check my understanding and provide a large base for me to make a claim on why I said and/or did in my publication.

Do you see why Wikipedia should not be used directly as a source? Do you see why Wikipedia is a great place to find good sources?

Don't apologize for anything Kyle, I think you've made a pretty solid point. I just get tired of the way some scholars look down their nose at wikipedia, and many other sources online, because it didn't come from the prestigious phd based community journals they're accustomed to. I think they hate the fact that relatively accurate information is readily available to the average joe, because they feel threatened in some way. Perhaps they feel angst, since today people don't have to scour microfilm, and grossly outdated books in a library for hours and hours. Hey, maybe not, I could be WAY off base here. I admit I too am biased. Every day I see teachers that are completely unwilling to use thousands of dollars worth of technology at their disposal for one simple fact. They think their time of learning is over, they are teachers now. God forbid their precious pride get pushed aside for a moment, so they can learn something new, even if it may make their job much easier in the long run. It's pathetic.

In the end, I agree completely that you should never cite wikipedia as your only source.

Well said Kyle.

It's not uncommon for people with PhDs to actually contribute to wikipedia. Not all of them snub their nose at it.

Wikipedia has always given me reliable information. So all you fancy dancy Wikipedia haters can go shove your noise in a 30 year old book somewhere. I'm doing research in style, Wikipedia style

I hate my school for not letting us use Wikipedia!