Alice in Wikipedialand
I'm guilty of it. When I see a commercial for a new TV series, when
someone makes a pop culture reference that I don't understand, when I
need to convince my roommate that there is no such thing as a
cat-rabbit hybrid, it's to Wikipedia I go first. For the most part, it
tells me what I want without making me sort through the virtual smog
found on most forums where ten different people have ten different
opinions, ranging from "A rabbit isn't genetically compatable with a
cat, just look at this graph" and "Our neighbor's cousin married a guy
who breeds them on a farm" to "This looks shopped" and "NO U."
Of course, just because more researchers--including some prominent ones--are citing Wikipedia does not mean it's necessarily a valid source for academic papers. Spiro
I think part of Wikipedia's allure is the fact that most of the articles are written in what appears to be an educated, knowledgable voice that we mistake for credibility most of the time. I'm not saying all Wikipedia articles are worthless, but I do have to remember to take everything on there with a grain of salt. There's no telling if some disgruntled employee clicked the "edit" tab and changed a few tiny details. Well, actually, there is the History tab, but who bothers with that?
So Wikipedia's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Orlowski
All in all, I think something's wrong when my English teacher won't accept a paper that cites wikipedia, but a science journal will. What I suggest is reading the article, finding good points, and then clicking on the footnote that will take you to a source that says the exact same thing as the article, without having to worry that some troll removed a few key words just to make me look like an idiot.
Trackback
Of course, just because more researchers--including some prominent ones--are citing Wikipedia does not mean it's necessarily a valid source for academic papers. Spiro
I think part of Wikipedia's allure is the fact that most of the articles are written in what appears to be an educated, knowledgable voice that we mistake for credibility most of the time. I'm not saying all Wikipedia articles are worthless, but I do have to remember to take everything on there with a grain of salt. There's no telling if some disgruntled employee clicked the "edit" tab and changed a few tiny details. Well, actually, there is the History tab, but who bothers with that?
So Wikipedia's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Orlowski
All in all, I think something's wrong when my English teacher won't accept a paper that cites wikipedia, but a science journal will. What I suggest is reading the article, finding good points, and then clicking on the footnote that will take you to a source that says the exact same thing as the article, without having to worry that some troll removed a few key words just to make me look like an idiot.
Trackback
You're quite right when you say readers can't be fooled just by a tone of writing that sounds expert; we must always be wary and take that extra effort and actually verify that something is as expert as it sounds..or not. Perhaps that's part of the reason why so many teacher's just reject Wikipedia altogether. Particularly for high school students, it would be an easy trap for inexperienced (or just lazy) students to cite an expert sounding article that is just jibber jabber. However, it's an important fact to bring up and an important lesson for all students to learn: Check your sources! So why no conquer the issue through Wikipedia, rather than avoiding it?