1. Anyone can add or edit wikipedia articles. Is that a good thing?
- No. The information may not be accurate. (4 responses) 12.5%
- Yes. Collaboration allows the best thinking to emerge. (28 responses) 87.5%
2. After reading the posted article, would you use wikipedia as a resource for a research project?
- Yes. (15 responses) 46.9%
- No. (3 responses) 9.4%
- Yes, but only to get an initial overview of my topic. (14 responses) 43.8%
Click on COMMENTS below to read opinions.
Comments regarding question #1:
1. but i do think that it is interesting to read the articles, because it gives a great outline for research topics, and how to structure your paper. Fri, 4/4/08 1:39 PM
2. While anyone can edit articles, all statements require a citation and a page is marked as lacking a citation if information is not properly cited. Also, there is a large community of people who insure that random, inaccurate edits aren’t made which prevents people from abusing the power to edit random pages. To prevent vandalism, pages that are controversial(such as the page on global warming) are locked from editing by guests/new users, which prevents a lot of vandalism. Finally, if a person is adamant about vandalizing pages that person’s IP address is banned, insuring that they can’t edit anything on wikipedia from that computer again. Fri, 4/4/08 1:22 PM
3. While the info may not be accurate, it’s not a bad place to start. I like to check it out to get a sense of where else I should look. It’s easier to use than a general encyclopedia. Fri, 4/4/08 11:56 AM
4. for the most part that is a good idea, but i agree it can give false information. Fri, 4/4/08 8:54 AM
5. Most of false info is edited out by wikinpeople or by other people who know about the topic Fri, 4/4/08 8:43 AM
6. not everyone can edit every article Fri, 4/4/08 8:31 AM
7. People may post inaccurate things, but that is why Wikipedia information should not be cited in a document. However, The information allows one to gain a better understanding to construct a better paper. All facts on Wikipedia should be backed up by more credible sources before being used in a paper. Thu, 4/3/08 10:20 AM
8. It’s not true that anyone can edit these articles. Try, and you will find that this is a very loaded, biased, and faulty question. Tue, 4/1/08 8:17 PM
9. They have good scientific information. Tue, 4/1/08 5:30 PM
10. ….But some sort of evaluation process should be part of it… Tue, 4/1/08 1:23 PM
11. It is hard to define “accuracy”, no matter whether the infomation is on a website or in a book. Most often when we are looking for “accuracy”, we’re actually looking for “the most widely accepted idea,” which would require confirmation with multiple resourses anyway ,no matter whether wiki is one of them. Tue, 4/1/08 1:03 PM
12. Thousands of people are responsible for keeping wikis acurate, infact, the entire public can. Therefore, although some may add incorrect information, it is most likely to be corrected. Many think that the people editing the wikis dont know about them, but, many of the people who visit a wiki will have acurate information about that page. Im sure that the editos of the britanica dont care about most of the stuff that they edit.
Comments regarding question #2:
1. I use wikipedia primarily to get an initial overview of my topic, however the information on wikipedia is often more accurate in subjects that are changing rapidly, such as computer science. Also, because wikipedia generally cites all of the sources that they use, the bibliography of a wikipedia page is often an excellent way of finding other sources related to whatever topic you’re researching. I try to avoid using wikipedia as my main source or even one of my major sources, but I’ve found that the overall level of quality of a wikipedia page is very high. I would be willing to cite wikipedia as a resource in any class that also allows me to use a normal encyclopedia because the level of accuracy of both is similar. Fri, 4/4/08 1:22 PM
2. i think to get a quick idea of anything it helps, but never for a legit resource. Fri, 4/4/08 8:54 AM
3. I would also check it against other sites Fri, 4/4/08 8:43 AM
4. Wikipedia is monitored by experts and difficult to change. Research paper topics will most likely not be controversial enough to motivate someone to lie in an article anyway. The articles are peer reviewed and generally very good. Tue, 4/1/08 8:17 PM
5. But I like it for popular culture information Tue, 4/1/08 1:23 PM
6. It gives you things like dates, people etc. you can use these and go off to find more detailed info. I treat it the same way as a general encyclopedia, it gives you an idea of who di what when, but doesnt have the details required for a paper.