ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Yertle the Turtle on March 19, 2018, 10:20:29 pm
-
This is something that gets me every time, people constantly bagging Wikipedia... I don't know why people bag Wikipedia so much. It is actually a far more correct source than anyone thinks. Many of the topics are under constant watch from experts to stop incorrect editing. If there are sections that actually say "citation needed" or whatever, then steer clear of those sections. But Wikipedia is incredibly well referenced for a huge variety of topics, and if you don't trust it, then just follow up its sources! I believe that the mistrust is seriously over-hyped, but the floor is open to anyone else's opinions...
You may resume your places, the Turtle King's rant is concluded ::)
-
Well its not usable at an academic standard. Beyond that, usable for what?
-
Well its not usable at an academic standard. Beyond that, usable for what?
I’d have to agree with this that it is unacceptable academically. However, as OP mentioned there are citations that can be found at the bottom with some great sources. The information on Wikipedia must have come from some of these sources and I find it’s a great way to find reputable information from external websites.
-
I think it's a good starting point and a good overview of a topic, and perfectly fine if you wanna look something up to get the general ideas but if it's depth you want then other sources are much more respected. I believe the ability for anyone to alter the site, even if just temporarliy, impacts on its credibility. So yeah, if you wanna write an essay, report or make an argument you need depth and reliability, hence why Wikipedia is not the best place to go.
-
Well its not usable at an academic standard. Beyond that, usable for what?
It's usable for gaining info. It is also a central place where you can find a resource pool, just follow all the citations, after finding a point you like. Similarly I think it should be usable at academic standard.
-
It's usable for gaining info. It is also a central place where you can find a resource pool, just follow all the citations, after finding a point you like. Similarly I think it should be usable at academic standard.
Your opinion is likely to change when you get to uni and start using genuine academic resources haha
-
just look up the original articles that wikipedia has referenced and use those as your "sources" - I would probably double check the article and make sure whatever you cite actually appears in the article.
-
Your opinion is likely to change when you get to uni and start using genuine academic resources haha
Not it's not. Not everything accurate in the history of humankind has to be from a uni approved academic source.
OP has given very valid reasons for why Wikipedia is great for information searching and has numerous citations and references to back it up.
-
Not it's not. Not everything accurate in the history of himnkind has to be from a uni approved academic source.
OP has given very valid reasons for why Wikipedia is great for information searching and has numerous citations and references to back it up.
You gotta admit though that Wikipedia doesn't cut it in uni though, which is the basis behind the original post I believe
-
Love Wikipedia. Awesome resource, when used for purpose. But citing it as a reliable and valid source isn't that purpose - When I'm writing new notes for the new HSC syllabus, for example, I can't cross check my knowledge against Wikipedia to make sure what I'm writing is correct. I need reputable sources so that when students read that work, I can be confident in its accuracy, because I've cross checked my knowledge against something with traceable credentials.
Edit: And that's just background reading, let alone actually direct referencing a statistic or something in a citation. Pointing to Wikipedia there would be like point to a whiteboard and being like, "Yep, the statistic is on that whiteboard there in the street! Can't guarantee no one has scribbled on it though, soz."
Not it's not. Not everything accurate in the history of himnkind has to be from a uni approved academic source.
OP has given very valid reasons for why Wikipedia is great for information searching and has numerous citations and references to back it up.
No one has actually cited or referenced anything in this thread! Citing looks like this, [1], or similar, the number in square brackets! Or do they do it different at Monash? I'm an Engineering student so not super familiar with how Law students might do it :)
You may resume your places, the Turtle King's rant is concluded ::)
Ily Turtle King <3 definitely with your initial sentiment in a lot of ways, I think people bag Wikipedia in its entirety when it can be really fantastic when used in the correct context :)
[1]: The ATAR Notes Forums (2018). Accessed 19th March 2018, at http://www.atarnotes.com
-
You gotta admit though that Wikipedia doesn't cut it in uni though, which is the basis behind the original post I believe
No of course it doesn't, but op never said it should be used for uni.
Anything that can be edited can't be used for uni but that doesn't mean the sources it contains aren't accurate.
He's talking about general discussions like on here, like in another thread I mentioned Wikipedia as a source and it was downvoted like it's a joke.
-
Well law students have their own screwed up way of marking called the ALRC which preferred footnotes and endnotes which are outdated.
Anyway my point isn't about species in the context your timing off.
I'm saying that Wikipedia isn't some refeencelsss and citeless website with 0 credibility. Most articles have a variety of information which is cited and clearly acknowledged in the endnotes of the article.
So I think the context OP is referring to is that using Wikipedia to back up an argument in a discussion like here is okay. And I would have to agree with the OP
-
Your opinion is likely to change when you get to uni and start using genuine academic resources haha
omg I am the only one at uni who uses wikipedia just to learn more stuff that I don't understand?
-
omg I am the only one at uni who uses wikipedia just to learn more stuff that I don't understand?
Nah, I went on a Wikipedia fuelled Quantum Physics binge for like 2 hours once ;)
-
Well law students have their own screwed up way of marking called the ALRC which preferred footnotes and endnotes which are outdated.
What is ALRC? Do you mean AGLC (Australian Guide to Legal Citation)?
-
What is ALRC? Do you mean AGLC (Australian Guide to Legal Citation)?
I was operating under that assumption :)
-
Like what Brenden is saying, it's not good for academic purposes but I mean stalking an actor's filmography and the plot of the movie/show is pretty trustworthy ;)
-
I’d have to agree with this that it is unacceptable academically. However, as OP mentioned there are citations that can be found at the bottom with some great sources. The information on Wikipedia must have come from some of these sources and I find it’s a great way to find reputable information from external websites.
There's no guarantee that the information on Wikipedia has come from one of the sources listed. But this isn't limited to Wikipedia. It's a common complaint about mainstream articles about scientific research, that they make claims which aren't in the original research. And in academic papers I've seen "X says Y [3]", and read the original paper to find that they didn't really say that, or that there were important uncertainties that were stripped out. There have even been papers cited that never existed (for example here - and no, I haven't checked any of the sources on that - though the author claims he has...)
I'm not so sure how much traceability and truth are linked anyway. A claim can be traced through three layers of links and still be wrong (or at least misguided). Another claim might be given with no supporting links but still be true. Ultimately, if people are trying to fool us one of the things they rely on is that most people won't critically examine any of the supporting links, let alone look for refutations of the claim. But I think I walked out of Wikipedia's territory there...
So basically, I think I'm with OP - Wikipedia is not the source of all truth, but it's a reasonable starting point with mostly decent accuracy. In everyday life, I would usually take things from it at face value without checking them unless they seem suspicious.
It can be a time-sink, too. For history, it's way too easy to start with an article on a specific incident, then follow the links out to the entire war, the social context, how it affected the next fifty years, etc...