# NT: Wikipedia



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

banned user said:


> Wikipedia, however, is good to get overviews of whatever subjects you are researching.
> 
> ... universities, for this reason, will not accept Wikipedia as a source.


I side with all that you said. I haven't yet used the related links for actual sources, but the idea had occured to me. They're probably (hopefully) fully legitimate sources on the most part. Also, it's good to hear someone finally agree with me here that W cannot be cited in university papers 

What degree are you working on banned?


----------



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

I guess banned user lost interest.

Hey, what do you know, a professor for a first year philosophy course is going to let me use Wikipedia as a source for Maslow (just to explain it). Though admittedly it's only to explain what it is, not to add to my argument (Bringing Maslow in was my idea),


----------



## gOpheR (Jan 19, 2009)




----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

I always use Wikipedia in order to find out about topics. Normally I just settle for that, however if I'm writing for a university or similar i'll use the knowledge obtained from there, and track down creditable sources for that information. I've always done it for Uni and I always will. Once a lecturer asked how I was able to find all of this accurate and eclectic knowledge from a host of various creditable sources, and I responded "Wikipedia". Needless to say she wasn't happy, as she had said from the very beginning of the course, that Wikipedia is not allowed to be cited and we are to find creditable sources.

Heh, she really shot herself in the foot by praising my sources there.


----------



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

Shai Gar said:


> I always use Wikipedia in order to find out about topics. Normally I just settle for that, however if I'm writing for a university or similar i'll use the knowledge obtained from there, and track down creditable sources for that information. I've always done it for Uni and I always will. Once a lecturer asked how I was able to find all of this accurate and eclectic knowledge from a host of various creditable sources, and I responded "Wikipedia". Needless to say she wasn't happy, as she had said from the very beginning of the course, that Wikipedia is not allowed to be cited and we are to find creditable sources.
> 
> Heh, she really shot herself in the foot by praising my sources there.


Excellent. Nothing like pwning a teacher. Stories like that are best when the teacher will never admit when she was wrong, even when it is so obvious.


----------



## Daemos (May 3, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> It is the nearest thing we have to a real Hitch-hiker's guide.. It is the most commonly accessed encyclopedia and it is cheaper than a real one. :laughing:


Still needs the words: Don't Panic on the main page though :tongue:

I find wikipedia to be a more than reliant source for most of my non-college related information seeking. Sure, it may sometimes be inaccurate or inconsistent with what you learn at college. But people tend to forget that anyone who knows better is free to edit the article, so in theory the quality should be improving. It's quite strictly regulated and nonsense is immediately removed.


----------



## helmetel (Jan 1, 2009)

I like Wikipedia – I am constantly researching things and Wikipedia is an excellent starting point. Teachers don't usually mind you using Wikipedia for assignments as long as you have other references to back the information up.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

i like it. it's basic and convenient


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

Wiki has alternatives to Maslow like Max- Neef. Ency Britannica would not be so comprehensive.

Maslow was a clear cut ENFP ???  Human needs for his and similiar types.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

PS: I run an information web site and I find about 60% of the time Wiki is the best source to link to (for further information).


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Wikipedia is great.

Wolfram will be great too, but it needs time and further development.


----------



## eccentricvirgo8 (May 31, 2009)

The comparison between traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia kind of drive me nuts, because I don't think of them as the same thing. I think of Wikipedia as something different entirely, especially if you consider the sources each uses, the media (traditional encyclopedias while sometimes are online, Wikipedia is actually created to be used online), and how each are updated. Yes, the same general purpose is there, but I just separate them as different source types. Also I have found multiple errors in traditional encyclopedias. Not that I'd throw out anything that had errors here or there, but fact-checking and source-checking is extremely useful when using any encyclopedia of any type. And the great thing about Wikipedia is that it is ALWAYS updated. Traditional encyclopedias are very expensive, take up a lot of space, and books don't update themselves, so if you get a nice collection it rapidly becomes outdated. I've found info on Wikipedia that I am pretty sure no other encyclopedia has, including great citations to research articles, articles I've tracked down and read and cherished within mere minutes of having that link on the page. 

But yeah I don't believe people should use Wikipedia as their single source of info or for writing papers. I'm always about using multiple sources and checking facts. But I can say for sure that Wikipedia absolutely has helped me to study for tests and also to quickly check something out that I was unsure about.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Wikipedia's great. When writing a school essay, it's where you get all you really need to know and you spend the rest of your time finding enough sources so your teachers think you actually researched it.


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

> Wikipedia's great. When writing a school essay, it's where you get all you really need to know and you spend the rest of your time finding enough sources so your teachers think you actually researched it.


I hated how my school would prefer you use their 20yr old copies of an encyclopedia over Wiki. I hated the teachers I had that wouldn't allow any online sources. Meh.


----------



## Kohtumine (Aug 16, 2009)




----------



## totefee (Aug 6, 2009)

I only use Wikipedia when I am doing research for fun. When I am doing academic research, I try to steer clear of it just in case. Wikipedia does have some decent material from it, though.


----------



## vanWinchester (May 29, 2009)

Wikipedia is great and all, but I tend to take everything with one or two grains of salt. Exactly because it was written by some other person. It's interesting for the sake of "seeing what others think" about a subject, but that's about it. I'd rather do my own researches on things or use something more legit. 
I very understand why you can not use it in schools. It's good that way.


----------



## Kohtumine (Aug 16, 2009)

Everything is written by some other person, I don't get the "be careful with wikipedia", every encyclopedia is written by people, every book. There's no Ultimate Truth Machine that writes encyclopedias. The whole concern is ridiculous.


----------



## vanWinchester (May 29, 2009)

Tlatoani said:


> Everything is written by some other person, I don't get the "be careful with wikipedia", every encyclopedia is written by people, every book. There's no Ultimate Truth Machine that writes encyclopedias. The whole concern is ridiculous.


Of course, but there is a big difference in a site where anybody can write something on or an encyclopedia written by somebody who has actually studied things and gets approved by a couple of other people with the same skills / degrees whatever. 
Not saying that people need a degree to know something, but I am not sure wikipedia gets actually tested for the contents. From what I know all they do is to check if there is enough sources, and the sources can be anything, even some websites. But maybe I am wrongly informed, who knows.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

I like wikipedia personally, I can also understand the fact you can't use it in school things but like everyone else has said you can use it to figure something out or get a basic overview and use all of that to continue on from there for so called "scholarly" sources.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

I predominantly use Wiki to verify things like the molar weight of CO2 and such, and in that capacity, it's awesome.

I prefer printed sources for more...controversial topics, if I can get access to them.


----------



## very bored (Jul 6, 2009)

It got brought up earlier in the thread, but in 2005, 
Nature did the comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica Their averages were within 1 error per page, I think it would be illegitimate to complain about Wikipedia being inaccurate.

And yes, I do like wikipedia


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

I like it for basic information. I usually have about 12 wiki pages pulled up at a time, all on stuff I want to read 
Also, it's a lot easier to use that same site than to scour the internet for EVERY. SINGLE. SUBJECT. i want to read about.


----------



## Mr. Limpopo (Oct 7, 2011)

I trust Wikipedia 100%.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Wikipedia is good for a scan and an overview.

Not good for anything that you'd actually be required to have a citation with.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

NephilimAzrael said:


> It is the nearest thing we have to a real Hitch-hiker's guide.. It is the most commonly accessed encyclopedia and it is cheaper than a real one. :laughing:


I believe its also better sourced than the encyclopedia Britannica. Which is always amusing.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

MissJordan said:


> Wikipedia is good for a scan and an overview.
> 
> Not good for anything that you'd actually be required to have a citation with.


The standard is very good. With all sources there are mistakes, errors, alternative theories/facts. It is so good that I use it in my research, giving the teachers a link in some cases. So good, I wish there was a *single special symbol* for Wikipedia *ψ* to save me writing the whole word out.


----------



## Mind Swirl (Sep 7, 2011)

I like Wikipedia, though I wouldn't use it as a serious "source" for writing book or paper. 
Wikipedia is especially useful when someone makes a reference to something I don't know about (such as a book, band, etc). I can just get a quick synopsis or idea of what they mentioned.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

Mind Swirl said:


> I like Wikipedia, though I wouldn't use it as a serious "source" for writing book or paper.
> Wikipedia is especially useful when someone makes a reference to something I don't know about (such as a book, band, etc). I can just get a quick synopsis or idea of what they mentioned.


Ency Britannica is often out of date, Sometimes Wiki has later references.


----------



## Penemue (Feb 23, 2010)

It's good for finding relatively accurate information in a hurry, but for the love of all that is sacred, do not try to use it as a source in your work/homework/essays. Look at the sources at the bottom if you want to look at the information from the original source.


----------

