Quote:
Originally Posted by Joebill
I have read of a number of universities that refuse to accept it as a resource for a term paper. So, I'm not the only one who sees it as unreliable.
|
The reason for that is not unreliability. It is the same reason that you do not allow dictionaries as references either. You should show that you can find primary references and use them.
If you check for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
you see:
Quote:
By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings. However, omissions and readability sometimes remained an issue – the former at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information and a considerable concern for fields such as medicine.
A common view as of 2010 in fields from medicine to technology and a range of social-cultural topics, is that Wikipedia is a valuable research resource and starting point for information and major news events, and articles in many areas are routinely accurate and informative (Military History topics being assessed as "spot on"), but users should take care – as with all general reference works – to check their facts and be aware that mistakes and omissions do occur.
|