|
Schmendrick
Last of the Red Hot Swamis



Registered: 08/04/13
Posts: 682
Loc: HagsCrag, TLU
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source.
#18830709 - 09/11/13 11:53 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I have a friend who will not accept ANY Wikipedia citation as a valid source of information, completely disregarding the advances in quality control and editing over the past several years. He appears to have been convinced by the following articles (and the included final report), though. Who knows... some of you might find this informative as well.
Please don't give me any grief about expecting stoners to read this shit. I don't. I am fully aware that there are some very smart, clearheaded people who frequent these boards. This is for them. If you don't want to read it, click the back button.
'Nature' study (published 2005)
'Journal of Clinical Oncology' study (published 2011)
Oxford study (published 2012)
and here is the link to the full report of the Oxford study mentioned in the final article.
Wikipedia reliability study PDF
|
muistrue
Inspired by the mystery


Registered: 03/20/05
Posts: 12,899
Loc: Behind the Redwoods
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: Schmendrick] 1
#18830752 - 09/12/13 12:03 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Wikipedia is reliable as long as you check out the sources listed within the entry. Wikipedia itself is not a source.
--------------------
|
Masked
The Nutter



Registered: 11/26/12
Posts: 8,979
Loc: Canada
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: muistrue]
#18830763 - 09/12/13 12:05 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
muistrue said: Wikipedia is reliable as long as you check out the sources listed within the entry. Wikipedia itself is not a source.
-------------------- .
|
Schmendrick
Last of the Red Hot Swamis



Registered: 08/04/13
Posts: 682
Loc: HagsCrag, TLU
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: muistrue]
#18830769 - 09/12/13 12:07 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
muistrue said: Wikipedia is reliable as long as you check out the sources listed within the entry. Wikipedia itself is not a source.
Agreed.
|
robbyberto
Water Boy



Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 15,499
Loc: Netherlands
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: Schmendrick]
#18830810 - 09/12/13 12:21 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Wikipedia's fun and all but for serious academic use I would try to avoid it entirely.
-------------------- “People say having kids is life changing, well that doesn’t necessarily mean a good thing, does it? I could take one of my legs off. That would change my life.” -Karl Pilkington
|
Masked
The Nutter



Registered: 11/26/12
Posts: 8,979
Loc: Canada
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: robbyberto] 1
#18830819 - 09/12/13 12:23 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
robbyberto said: Wikipedia's fun and all but for serious academic use I would try to avoid it entirely.

-------------------- .
|
Schmendrick
Last of the Red Hot Swamis



Registered: 08/04/13
Posts: 682
Loc: HagsCrag, TLU
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: robbyberto]
#18830854 - 09/12/13 12:37 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
robbyberto said: Wikipedia's fun and all but for serious academic use I would try to avoid it entirely.
As muistrue said, you should never cite the contents of a Wikipedia article itself as an actual relevant source of information until you have scrolled to the bottom and verified the source of the information for yourself.
Really, Wikipedia does provide a very useful academic service though: It makes it VERY easy to locate sources which are relevant to the topic at hand. You search the site for the article you are interested in, and then just scroll down to the sources and take it from there. That way you aren't relying on someone elses interpretation of the source material.
Edited by Schmendrick (09/12/13 12:38 AM)
|
Magicman69
All About the Benjamins



Registered: 05/29/13
Posts: 6,876
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: Masked] 1
#18830859 - 09/12/13 12:41 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
wrong thread
Edited by Magicman69 (09/12/13 12:42 AM)
|
NotTheDevil
Transhuman


Registered: 01/08/13
Posts: 5,436
Loc: US
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: Masked]
#18830865 - 09/12/13 12:43 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Lets go
|
robbyberto
Water Boy



Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 15,499
Loc: Netherlands
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: Schmendrick]
#18830895 - 09/12/13 12:58 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Schmendrick said:
Quote:
robbyberto said: Wikipedia's fun and all but for serious academic use I would try to avoid it entirely.
As muistrue said, you should never cite the contents of a Wikipedia article itself as an actual relevant source of information until you have scrolled to the bottom and verified the source of the information for yourself.
Really, Wikipedia does provide a very useful academic service though: It makes it VERY easy to locate sources which are relevant to the topic at hand. You search the site for the article you are interested in, and then just scroll down to the sources and take it from there. That way you aren't relying on someone elses interpretation of the source material.
I suppose that I agree. It does have a spectacular amount of weird information, too.
-------------------- “People say having kids is life changing, well that doesn’t necessarily mean a good thing, does it? I could take one of my legs off. That would change my life.” -Karl Pilkington
|
teamkiller
ghetto drama whore



Registered: 06/06/11
Posts: 8,806
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: The reliability of Wikipedia as an information source. [Re: robbyberto]
#18831090 - 09/12/13 03:07 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i didn't read the reliability studies, but its common sense wikipedia would be much more reliable than textbooks. I dunno where else you'd look.
--------------------
|
|