"Wikipedia is not a reliable source!"
I have heard that from professors more times than I can remember since starting back at KSU a couple of years ago. Because of that, I used to always shy away from it and look at anyone who did rely on it as somewhat ignorant. But now, I am beginning to be more receptive to Wikipedia.
Although I do believe that one should not rely on it as a direct source that is credible, it can still be an excellent research tool. For example, for my class on African American Literature, I had to write a paper about literature and black feminism. I started my research online and of course when you type in any type of phrase, Wikipedia is usually at the top of the results page. So with skepticism, I read what was posted. But what I noticed more was the link to references at the bottom of the article and through that was able to find all of the credible sources that I needed. So now, I use Wikipedia often as a way to find resources quickly.
I think that all of us are pretty well in agreement on this whole issue. We all realize that it is not suitable for in-depth research or as a citation in a formal college assignment. It is more of a recreational tool, or a catalyst to find out what we need. Its availability is its greatest asset and we all take advantage of it. Seemingly every topic I've ever wanted to know about has a Wikipedia article, though it is not always as fleshed out as in academic journals. Sometimes, though, I don't really want to read academic journals. It's like sometimes I just want to read a stupid action book to take my mind off of things after a long day instead of delving into classic literature.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you! Wikipedia is like reading "People Magazine" while I'm having my nails done. I can't really enjoy a piece of literature in that environment but I want something to while away the time.
ReplyDeleteWe recognized in class this morning that we have a consensus regarding using this website: use it carefully! When reading an entry in Wikipedia, as with any written work, I try to assess the bias of the writer while I take in the information. I once read a biography of George Patton that was so extremely pro-George (and I am a huge fan) that I researched the author, assuming he must be a close relative. To my surprise, he was a retired colonel in the British army!
I made that same point in a comment on David's blog! Great minds think alike. I've noticed that you can also cross-check the article with the resources cited. If the information matches up and everything is properly cited, I don't think there's anything wrong with using a Wikipedia article. It just requires more work to confirm credibility than any resource should.
ReplyDelete