I am curious to see what others have to say about wikipedia. I vote yes; it is credible. Sure, just about anyone can edit it, but it is moderated by the general public, therefore mistakes aren't as common as one may think.

I would say it is very credible.

__________________
There is no "I" in "team", unless Apple makes it... Then it would be iTeam.

 

It's credible enough. BUt I have found mistakes in the past.

 

As have I, but i still go back.

__________________
There is no "I" in "team", unless Apple makes it... Then it would be iTeam.

 

It seems about as reliable as just about any other reference, but just as with any other reference, it shouldn't be the only reference used. Check the citations and refs given, and author credentials if you can. And the more political/personal/controversial the topic, the more likely it is to be edit-bombed by people who feel they have a vested interest in what people think.

Just my $0.02.


Torben

 

its an unofficial encyclopedia. alot of it has useful, relevant, accurate information. but alot isaso unsubstaniated.

 

I find that errors are corrected quite quickly; I'd imagine thousands of self-important, smart people trawling Wikipedia looking for errors.

Depending on the teacher/professor, I have and have not been allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source. Maybe it'll gain credibility as a source if the editing is restricted.

__________________
-Ian

 

I voted yes but my children are not allowed to use Wikipedia for anything. It appears to be frowned upon by their teachers.

Mike.

 

Wikipedia is better than many other sources of information that you actually pay for. An error in a book or CD ROM won't be fixed until the next release but Wikipedia,it likely to be fixed in less than 24 hours.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

Has less errors than Britannica, if that means anything. (wikipedia is excellent, and to all it's critics, if you want to verify the facts, use the references at the bottom of the page).

 

It doesn't seem to have many critics, no one has voted no yet!

Mike.

 

Wiki can be fooled. There was the time that Stephen Colbert, a comedy news host, had his viewers change an entry on the Wiki for a lark. So it can be prone to errors if enough people post supporting information. But in general, I'd say it's pretty reliable.

__________________
--- The days of the digital watch are numbered. ---

 

That is one reason why i asked. Our teachers frown upon us using wikipedia, but i use it regardless what the teachers say. When they complain about it, i usually just argue my point until they give in...

__________________
There is no "I" in "team", unless Apple makes it... Then it would be iTeam.

 

I say it's credible. The technical and DIY information I've found is consistently reliable. Often times, things like tables of technical figures are incomplete, but you still get more information of fairly detailed subjects than you would in a general encyclopedia.

There are two details behind the development of Wiki, one that justifies why you should argue for it as credible reference, and one that suggests why you shouldn't cite Wiki as a resource.

Pro citation: It's just about the most democratic collection of human understanding to date. There's an important argument to be made that the canon of human knowledge only consists of what we agree on as being "true," regardless of how closely that truth reflects reality. Any requirement to cite the research of others is a submission to the understanding of truth of another person or group of people. Being inherently social in nature, your argument would be: the more people invited to inform the truth, by definition will increase the likeliness their understanding is true. This argument of course presumes the benevolence of people towards one another as self-evident.

Con citation: At best, Wiki is anecdotal evidence of, mostly, secondary research. The ultimate goal when citing a reference in a scholarly paper is to get as close to the source as possible. At the top end of things, this is university research exploring our world, collecting quantitative and qualitative data, and theorizing about things. Suppose your paper was on the paintings of Renoir.

Wiki, your school's encyclopedia, or a postcard with a reproduction of something like the above are all secondary resources. In Wiki's case, it's unlikely that the information provided about this or any other subject has been reviewed by anyone who can be unequivocally championed as the best expert in that particular subject. You're just going off what most people think is quite likely the truth - more what they feel, than what they know, and based on their own limited understanding and experience in the subject. The best way to write a paper on Renoir is to go and see the actual painting(s) you're writing about, go to the place Renoir was born, walk in his footsteps and trace his career: his life, his tecnique. Become the closest thing to being Renoir. Reference those specific artifacts from his life: his brush, his house, his work, that you've seen for yourself. Those are primary resources. What you want to do is get as close to that reality as possible. Your teachers/profs will no doubt simply consider Wiki just too far removed from reality.

 

Perhaps...but I think the cost outweighs the benefit in that case. I have better things to do...like sleep...and have money.

 

After studying electronics using texts by Floyd (Prentice Hall,) I really must agree. Every edition has a ton of mistakes (especially in their answers to problems.) They fix those in the next edition, and introduce many more. Errors such as these are often very confusing to a new learner.

I had an art history prof who claimed it was not necessary to view the work to write the history, although I tend to agree with you.
With anything which involves opinion, rather than fact, it is difficult, or impossible to have a correct answer.
If you are familiar with the work of Roland Barthes, the author is dead, and with good reason. When the power structures are disassembled, the reason becomes evident. That is a good reason that:
Many who profess, are also guilty of an overabundance of pride, and have such vested interest; this doesn't just happen on Wickipedia.

Our paradigm is shifting away from the idea that an individual can produce truth, because of the fact that we are all susceptible to the drunkenness which power can produce in the individual. In most cases, the careless tossing around of the term 'genius,' will posit the user in a precarious place, with respect to those who are 'up on their reading.' Instead, we are beginning to realize that truth may surface, in a situation in which there is nothing personal at steak, such as the work done in collaboration.