Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
That is a more sensible rule.
I think that the thing about Wikipedia and it not being correct and could not be used academically was something that was valid in the beginning when Wikipedia first appeared but this have changed and academic institutions have also begun to change there rules regarding Wikipedia.
|
Umm..it depends on what you're using Wikipedia for. You can cite Wikipedia not as a credible SOURCE of information but say as an example of something else. So for example, if you were to write a paper on say internet communities and practices of information censorship and production, you could cite various aspects of Wikipedia as examples and illustrations of what you're talking about. However, no one in academia who is writing a credible scholarly piece of work is ever going to cite Wikipedia as it stands because anyone and everyone with internet access can change entries.
Did you hear about that editor for Wikipedia who claimed to be a religion professor but turned out to be just a 24-year old from Kentucky with no advanced degree? Check out this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1544...0-entries.html
Now, this is not to say that every Wikipedia entry is marred by scandals. Rather, this is to illustrate the possibilities and ease of damaging Wikipedia entries.
If I wanted to, I could right now go into Wikipedia and make drastic and erroneous changes to any entry I want. And if at that moment someone were looking at that entry they could be citing my erroneous information for their academic paper and they'd be in error.
I have been to Wikipedia entries where I found the information inaccurate, changed it and then because someone else thought the changes were wrong they changed it back. We did that for a short while and then I just left it alone.
Again, Wikipedia is good to get some general knowledge but not necessarily scholarly credible pieces of information.