Wikipedia...how trusty is it

The librarian at our school told the kids to NEVER use it. My students are doing a Bio Brief on Inventors



They are 8th graders and we only have about 35 minutes each day after you factor out getting the laptops powered up and then put away and attendance ect maybe we have 25 minutes of total time to work


I want them to look up their inventor, find their full names and any nicknames, place them in historical context, discuss what it was that made them notable and any other legacy issues.

All of this is to be put onto a publisher flyer in ONE paragraph of no more than 5 sentences and then put a picture of the inventor and the invention on it


The paragraph must be in the students own words.

It will have to be done by Tuesday



I say let the kids use it but verify with other sources

I want two sources such as Encarta or biographies ect...but I told them Wiki was a great place to start







what say you?

but for real research it's topical, unreliable, and generally subpar.

They are 8th graders and we only have about 35 minutes each day after you factor out getting the laptops powered up and then put away and attendance ect maybe we have 25 minutes of total time to work


I want them to look up their inventor, find their full names and any nicknames, place them in historical context, discuss what it was that made them notable and any other legacy issues.

All of this is to be put onto a publisher flyer in ONE paragraph of no more than 5 sentences and then put a picture of the inventor and the invention on it


The paragraph must be in the students own words.

It will have to be done by Tuesday

or do you have an old encyclodedia or something?

we have encyclopedias but I am encouraging them to use encarta on line

If you're working on a research project of some kind you won't want to use it as a source; you need more guaranteed, verifiable references. But if you just want general information on a particular topic, and you're aware of the potential pitfalls, like slanted info on highly politicized subjects or inadequate detail in highly complex ones, wikipedia is definitely a very useful tool. I've always found that it polices itself pretty well.

the random change that is graffiti is obvious and you can see it removed.

The editors keep it solid - but the method for doing so requires several hours before the day's graffiti, if any - and there usually is none - can be removed.

That anyone can write a Wikipedia entry and anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry.

I don't think it's to be considered as a reliable source therefore, especially regarding anything or anyone considered to be controversial.


On Edit: Dammit spacing error

It's the out-of-the way ones where you'll run across bullshit from time to time.

But a fantastic collection of sources and starting points, usually. And a kick to read for fun.

... especially articles regarding politics and the historical background of politicians and existing corporations.

Kids should be allowed to use it, perhaps as a starting point, but it should not be used as a primary resource for research.

but I wouldn't quote it or anything I read on it

... even when I am researching a topic for a grad course, but I nevertheless revert to peer-reviewed journals for my literature review. I have never put "Wikipedia" in a bibliography, and I doubt I ever will. ;) :D

Wikipedia info is sourced. When I'm writing papers, I sometimes check it out and follow the sources. If they're legitimate and usable for what I need, Wikipedia has done some of the work for me.

I agree with you OP, use it if you wish, but verify.

On the other hand, lots of Wiki's articles do come with built-in bibliographies. So it has its uses.

About as accurate as the encyclopedia in your school librarian's library.

Of course it's good for starting research. If it doesn't sound right, check the references. That goes for any sort of research tool.

I think that's all that needs to be said.

If you are just looking for light information, or tidbits on non-controversial or niche subject matter, it's usually pretty good.

For actual research? Absolutely track down the sources that are cited in a Wiki article and use those.

encyclopedia? Impressive.

The teachers are right. Use it to get a big picture and then proceed from there. Leave it out as a source, unless there is some uncoming interesting controversy that could be relevant to proving/disproving something.

It's entertainment and free, not scholarly.

Redstone

generally pretty reliable. Most popular articles have dozens or hundreds of sources.

It's as good as any a place to start. I sometimes use it as a backup for arguments, when my opponent says (actual quote):

I invite him to find anything to illustrate his objection, like something totally false. They probably could if they had the time, but somehow they never do. Actually I try to find my evidence on a right wing site first, if I'm arguing with a freeper.

I had a professor who made a good little sideline of finding errors in the Encyclopedia Americana. So they're all suspect.

I agree with you, Wiki is a starting point. If they are compiling statistics, it's probably OK for a quick and dirty. Not good for serious research, which should touch multiple sources anyway.

--IMM

which may, depending on the cite, be very reliable.

that come up in daily casual conversations.

People, places, events, differences between two similar things, origins of names, etc etc etc. It's a GREAT basic everyday source for info. It is NOT where you go for genuine scholarly research.

Just...don't.

from other sources.

Seems silly to discount it altogether.


For example, in the George Washington wiki entry, there's loads of cites (some with direct links) to other more primary sources:

LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

I think many articles are well done while some are a waste of time. For researching a brief inventor bio info you'd probably be fine with the content on Wikipedia. On the other hand, current event items or articles with the smallest amount of controversy are often lousy, where the loudest voice on the discussion page usually wins.

For research in anything bigger like a school report, I might try reading Wikipedia as a launching point, but I wouldn't use it as my primary or exclusive source.

For certain scientific disciplines.

For political information and analysis, not so much. The problem is that there are so many challenges to subjective analysis pages that it's impossible to get true, dispassionate entries.

However, for basic, verifiable information, I'd consider it fairly reliable.

Juniors, Seniors, and god forbid college students shouldn't be permitted to use Wikipedia as a citation for anything, ever.

Colbert put a fine point on that with his African Elephant debacle.

Wiki is full of Truthiness, and is therefore very "trusty."

.

For casual use, to get a "background" story, fine.

It takes an analytical mind to research a subject. Don't depend on just one source.