Many schools don't think so. Personally, I don't think that it is either. Though majority of the stuff on there is true, I can go edit it right now so it backs me up in any argument/debate/whatever I'm trying to prove.
Personally, I think Wikipedia is very useful because it has information on everything. It's good if you just want to quickly learn the basics of something, because it's very direct and to the point.
My question to you is: Do you think that schools should accept Wikipedia as a reliable source? Should someone be able to prove you wrong with just Wikipedia, or should they have other sources as well?
EDIT: I'm not calling Wikipedia bad. I'm just asking if it's a valid source since it can be altered so easily, and people who don't check the sources will believe false information if it was added.
Wikipedia is a great source, even for school work. You see, you might not be able to cite Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia has links to its sources, which you can then use for such activities.
No, schools should not accept it as a reliable source. It generally doesn't comprise enough information on a subject to write a college level paper on anyway. Although most of the information on wikipedia has citations to other sites, and those sites can be used, assuming they are legitimate.
Wikipedia is a great source, even for school work. You see, you might not be able to cite Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia has links to its sources, which you can then use for such activities.
This. Wikipedia was blocked at my school for the longest time. Buncha asshats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
If you don't think so, then check Wikipedia's sources.
I think that most of the stuff on Wikipedia is true. I like Wikipedia, it's useful. I'm just wondering if it can be considered a reliable source since it's so easily changed. If I'm doing a school project I check Wikipedia's sources to put in my bibliography, and I use Wikipedia's sources to get additional information.
My question (phrased differently) is: If you were a high school/university teacher and a student handed you a report with Wikipedia as their main source of information, would you consider it valid?
Wikipedia always cites it sources [1] or they just put those letters, I have never bothered to check them...
That's my point. I can go edit something on wikipedia right now, keep that little [1] thing there, and people who don't check the sources would consider it true.
Wikipedia is as reliable or even more reliable than the dated textbooks that schools use. Instead of labelling wikipedia as a bad source with very weak arguments, they should teach you how to use it. It's an amazing tool if you know how to use it.
The problem with Wikipedia is that while it claims to be "open," there is much turf that is regulated by insular groups and individuals who protect their electronic turf. Moreover, bias can be introduced via selective presentation; some things may not be considered relevant, or emphasis may be on some things over others.
Wikipedia's role is that of a quick source of basic information before a more detailed survey of information and sources, to learn about what ideas and topics are, and for information for general interest. In short, a starting point, not a conclusion.
If you want to do a proper research project you should always use more than one source of information. Wikipedia is a good source, its not perfect but I'm sick of people acting like internet sources are always unreliable but books are sacred and infallible.
I agree with that we shouldn't be citing it, but the way they've locked down on not letting you even look at it for a first opinion on a project, or for finding the source links at the bottom, is ridiculous.
It's also very quickly changed back. Chances are low that someone just happens to be on that particular changing things up to confuse people, and chances are even lower it won't be very obvious to you as you're reading it.
That's my point. I can go edit something on wikipedia right now, keep that little [1] thing there, and people who don't check the sources would consider it true.
Which is why if you plan on using Wikipedia, you should cross reference your research.
In schools teachers seem to be concerned that there a roving gangs of people who do nothing but change Wikipedia pages to **** with the students. While all the information may not be accurate all the time, I feel that common sense (in most cases) can identify "facts" which aren't.
Wikipedia is a great source, even for school work. You see, you might not be able to cite Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia has links to its sources, which you can then use for such activities.
Personally, I think Wikipedia is very useful because it has information on everything. It's good if you just want to quickly learn the basics of something, because it's very direct and to the point.
My question to you is: Do you think that schools should accept Wikipedia as a reliable source? Should someone be able to prove you wrong with just Wikipedia, or should they have other sources as well?
EDIT: I'm not calling Wikipedia bad. I'm just asking if it's a valid source since it can be altered so easily, and people who don't check the sources will believe false information if it was added.
*there may or may not be cake
This. Wikipedia was blocked at my school for the longest time. Buncha asshats.
I think that most of the stuff on Wikipedia is true. I like Wikipedia, it's useful. I'm just wondering if it can be considered a reliable source since it's so easily changed. If I'm doing a school project I check Wikipedia's sources to put in my bibliography, and I use Wikipedia's sources to get additional information.
My question (phrased differently) is: If you were a high school/university teacher and a student handed you a report with Wikipedia as their main source of information, would you consider it valid?
That's my point. I can go edit something on wikipedia right now, keep that little [1] thing there, and people who don't check the sources would consider it true.
[citation needed]
*there may or may not be cake
Wikipedia's role is that of a quick source of basic information before a more detailed survey of information and sources, to learn about what ideas and topics are, and for information for general interest. In short, a starting point, not a conclusion.
I wouldn't cite it, but as others have said, scroll to the bottom and cite those (at least look at them first)
It's also very quickly changed back. Chances are low that someone just happens to be on that particular changing things up to confuse people, and chances are even lower it won't be very obvious to you as you're reading it.
You heard that, green and red.
Which is why if you plan on using Wikipedia, you should cross reference your research.
Other than this.