Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Is Wikipedia Underrated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Wikipedia Underrated?

post #1 of 22
10/27/09 at 4:53am
Thread Starter 
While I understand the criticism against Wikipedia not being a fully reliable source due to the fact that anyone can edit it at anytime, I find that a lot of the sarcastic comments like "Oh, Wikipedia says so. I guess that settles it...LOL" undermine it too much.

It's sure not a feasible source for thesis and research paper type data; but for a lot of trivial facts and casual information, what's written on Wikipedia is pretty much ace. And even for research stuff, Wikipedia can point to useful links since it has a lot of sources as footnotes.

Some people take the Wikipedia bashing too far to the point of making it seem like anything written on Wikipedia is bogus.

What do you guys think?
Reply
post #2 of 22
10/27/09 at 4:58am
It's overrated.
Everyone links it, everyone loves it. Only the critics are using their head.
Its not the issue that anyone can edit it at any time, its the fact that it is not peer reviewed correctly that is the main issue.

You know what is underrated? The good old book.
Reply
post #3 of 22
10/27/09 at 4:58am
Like you said, I would not use it as a reliable source of information when writing research papers and such. But for general use I find it reliable "enough".
The fact that anyone can edit it anytime also may help keeping its content up-to-date and correct most of the time. As if someone write something wrong it will most certainly be corrected in short time.

Use it for what its worth I say...
Reply
post #4 of 22
10/27/09 at 5:51am
Maybe slightly underrated. I really feel like slapping people whenever they go 'hurr hurr anyone can edit it it's not accurate'. You can use it to find 'reliable' sources, but most of the time it's already right. For such a fantastic wealth of information it gets more crap then it should.
Reply
post #5 of 22
10/27/09 at 6:07am
I think the backlash started when some people who couldn't convince others started using Wiki as the definitive reference on whatever subject they were arguing about.
Reply
post #6 of 22
10/27/09 at 6:15am
Wikipedia is a great source for information. That said, it's only level entry due to no professional peer reviewing of the pages. That is why journals are used as they are peer reviewed so no bs gets through.

So I feel that the criticism is just for those who quote Wikipedia. To use it to get a basic understanding of <insert topic> is fine so long as you don't bloody quote it lol.
Reply
post #7 of 22
10/27/09 at 6:16am
hmm...

IMO, it's underrated for the public, but overrated in academia.

A good source, but not for a school thesis or essay.
Reply
post #8 of 22
10/27/09 at 6:20am
It's way overrated. Everyone at my college uses it to cram for advanced biology and chemistry classes. It's accurate enough to do that.
Reply
post #9 of 22
10/27/09 at 7:06am
After reading Randy Pausch's book, I am a little more convinced that Wikipedia is a pretty good source. I always thought it was a good source of information, but like others have said, not for writing papers and whatnot. Anyways, Pausch said that he wrote an entry in the World Book Encyclopedia and it seemed like the editors usually just trust the expert's entry submission. I know it's not really a strong argument defending Wikipedia, but I'm sure nothing is perfect. We're all human after all. I personally use Wikipedia all the time when I am wondering about something and need a quick answer.
Reply
post #10 of 22
10/27/09 at 7:34am
I love Wikipedia. Sure, you can not base your scientific paper on it but for orientation about a subject it can be very useful.
Reply
post #11 of 22
10/27/09 at 7:38am
Depends on the subject. For science and maths it's actually pretty good because most of the articles have a good list of sources.
Reply
post #12 of 22
10/27/09 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielCox View Post
Depends on the subject. For science and maths it's actually pretty good because most of the articles have a good list of sources.
x2. At the very least, Wikipedia is a good place to find other sources on a certain topic.
Reply
post #13 of 22
10/27/09 at 1:45pm
Another problem with Wikipedia is that, on certain subjects that are less objective than others, it reflects some pretty obvious biases or prejudices. Nevertheless, I still use it from time to time for some background information. You just have to be careful.
Reply
post #14 of 22
10/27/09 at 1:51pm
For anything in 'pop culture' that doesn't really 'matter', it's a magnificent and worthy resource. For anything serious, it is a mess. A lecturer at my university used to set an essay for his final year students (probably still does), and immediately prior to setting it would ensure that the wikipedia page was subtly wrong, with one key detail switched. He would then remind students of the importance of proper referencing. Anybody getting it the wrong way around was capped at 50%.

Now, whether this tale amuses or annoys you is irrelavent. What is key is that it is not only possible, but very easy to implement. And that is why it is simply not good enough for academic research.
Reply
post #15 of 22
10/27/09 at 2:23pm
Only a buffoon, or lazy student, would suggest Wikipedia for academic research.

I never sensed a particular backlash against it, other than the usual "I'm going to demonstrate how world weary I am" nonsense. So I say it's fairly rated and have enjoyed countless times over the years, as a introduction to a myriad of subjects.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Is Wikipedia Underrated?