Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:28 am

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

The following is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry for Thomas Kuhn’s book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Quote:

“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.

This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.

I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:50 am

If it makes it's easier for people to acess knowledge then i am all for it. If someone who would not open a book trawls through wikipedia and starts developing interests in new areas the that is a good thing.

Knowledge has always been a powerful weapon and the ones to worry about are not those who might not be capable of using it and may be deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas because they can look up wikipedia, but rather those that think they can determine what is good for people to know and keep the weapon of knowledge away from the ordinary punter and don'y think information should be freely available

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:14 am

Yeah. google is bad enough as it is...

I like knowing I can go to Wikipedia to read about something without having to scroll through 50 marketing ads and pop-up windows that make you want to throw your computer out the window.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:26 am

It's a good first place to research something but always bounce your subject off other sources. Wiki can be edited by pretty much anyone...

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:50 am

I'm sure that wikpedia is a well researched and accreditied encyclopedia or it would be getting torn to shreds by its competitors, of whom the biggest is Encylopedia Britannica, which is the standard reference work, but isn't free like wickpedia. I'm sure there are others too in the States and Europe, so if you are worried about the veracity of wickpedia the obvious answer is to use more than one source for your inforamtion on things. I've used it on occasion, and for a free resource I have to say I think in general its very good.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:53 pm

Wiki knows everything.

It's brilliant.

And breaking news! OMG Wiki articles are just as fast as news.google.com, and it kind of automatically collates, so you get an increasingly comprehensive article. It's great.

:D:D:D

Go wiki.

Inaccuracies can certainly get into articles, but try editing an article to win an argument, and see how long your edit stays there.

(Well actually, preferably don't, but I have it on good authority that about half and hour is a pretty long time.)

... And yes, don't quote it in a reasearch paper. For two reasons the first is that anyone could have made up what you're quoting, and the other, slightly more interesting reason your references won't check out, because it changes by the second.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:35 pm

I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

coberst · Post by **coberst** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:35 am

Erinna1112 wrote: I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

Thanks for that statement. I shall quote it to others. It reflects my own opinion.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:18 am

coberst wrote: Thanks for that statement. I shall quote it to others. It reflects my own opinion.
But don't underestimate the great wiki for non-research purposes.

And the nature journal's comparison between Wiki and Encyclopædia Britannica showed less difference than might be expected.

(Almost needless to say Britannica disagreed (.pdf), and Nature stood firm.)

:D

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:30 am

Erinna1112 wrote: I'm a current college student, and any paper that cites Wikipedia as a source automatically gets a failing grade. It's not an appropriate scholarly source, since the articles are anonymous and therefore the author's credentials cannot be verified. For this reason, it doesn't qualify as an authoritative source. It's also edit-able by anyone, as was mentioned uptopic.

I had one prof that said he didn't even want us using it as an idea generator. That said, I often refer to it, but only to get general information. I have other sources. Questia.com is an awesome library. It's not free, but a hundred bucks a year for the kind of research I can do there is well worth it.

I didn't realize that it was editable like that. Show's I don't look at it much, well if thats the case then its useless as a research resource, thank god I've never used it.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:20 pm

Don't get me wrong - Wikipedia is a hoot. It's great fun, and I've spent hours in there reading. The information is not necessarily bad - in fact, most of it is undoubtedly accurate. Since it is editable by anyone, any bad information that gets in there is usually quickly corrected. The links and bibliographies are great. It's just not appropriate for scholarly research, for the reasons I mentioned before. I've used books that I've found in bibliographies in articles on Wikipedia as sources - since they are not anonymous, they can be evaluated. So in and of itself, it's not a bad thing. It's just not a research source, directly.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:59 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: Don't get me wrong - Wikipedia is a hoot. It's great fun, and I've spent hours in there reading. The information is not necessarily bad - in fact, most of it is undoubtedly accurate. Since it is editable by anyone, any bad information that gets in there is usually quickly corrected. The links and bibliographies are great. It's just not appropriate for scholarly research, for the reasons I mentioned before. I've used books that I've found in bibliographies in articles on Wikipedia as sources - since they are not anonymous, they can be evaluated. So in and of itself, it's not a bad thing. It's just not a research source, directly.

I agree entirely.