Your thoughts on Wikipedia

[PMS Coolsvilla]

First the story and then the question.

I was working on a paper for one of my classes and decided to use the internet to find more information. I go to Google, type in my search, and scan through the results. Unfortunately, there weren't very many. One that came up, however, was Wikipedia. Now, I've been leery about this site before and only clicked on it because I was desperate for an answer.
The page that came up said "Mrs. Nelson is the worst math teacher ever-- Yo Mama".
I sat in disbelief for a moment as I re-read the entry a couple of times. And this was the entry for Greek theater.

I have checked since then and the entry has been replaced with a properly thought out article with useful information.

Now here is the question. I'm going to be an English teacher (fun, I know ). I have friends (other teachers; not limited to English) that have already decided that they will not accept Wikipedia as a source on a research paper. In my classes, if someone quickly looks something up on their laptop and says that it's on Wiki, half the class will look interested and the other half will roll their eyes and say "But that's Wiki! You can't trust the information on there."

Before I make countless children unable to use Wiki as a source, what do you think?

Do you think that Wikipedia is an acceptable source since ANYONE can change it?

[H2O Fate]

To be honest i'm for wiki. I've used it on countless assignments which all had been passed with B+ - A- average. Wiki's huge theres bound to be atleast a few bad pages. But yeah as you said you checked later and got useful information. As i learned students don't just check one site they check as many as they can in some cases or the slackers *I was one for instance* will check one to three different sites. But outlawing wiki from one bad experience on it to all of your soon to be students would be kind of harsh.

[Lucita PMS]

in some ways it is.
a few days ago i've read in a diary that u must not trust in the content of wikipedia for what you were saying, that any person can modify the content.

I personally use wikipedia for some searchs but i use other pages as well.

Anyway, wikipedia is the biggest "online encyclopedia" and i guess that has a lot of certain things in it.
you may not believe all the things that says but you will realize that some of them are lies.

It's up to you...
you always can get second choices
=)

[PMS Coolsvilla]

But, sadly, this isn't the first time that it has happened. I've been to the site many times before and seen not only problems like the one mentioned above, but also incorrect information in the articles that are supposed to be done properly.
The thing that I fear is that children won't look at other sources and just rely on Wiki, even though the information is wrong.
I'm going to be teaching high school seniors, so I don' think they'll want to put that much time into their homework and check other sources.

[PMS Rain]

You can trust the sources and the links on Wiki but in the end the information directly from Wiki is posted by the members (takes nothing to be one and your information is voted on by other Wiki members).

Taken straight from Wiki ironicly because I'm sure Wiki knows what Wiki is

Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, and its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Web site.

Most of the stuff on there is written by people with no reason to lie but that doesn't mean they have experience and credibility. I would say it should be a last resort or a good starting point to find LINKS credible information. I suggest going to the sources that are at the bottom for the good information,. Otherwise Wiki really isn't much different from the Urban Dictionary which you should DEFINITELY stay away from because UD is remedial, slang, crap and useless to society.

[nighthawksw]

I've had some great experiences using wikipedia: it's helped me get names of people involved in events (providing more searchable names on other sites), it has given great referances, and it has worked for good summaries/review on subjects.

Yes, anybody can edit data: but the edits are saved, IPs are saved as well; so when somebody does ruin a section (and it is checked), it's fixed and the IP banned. BUT! that does leave a time where students can obtain falsified information. For the sake of avoiding a student using Wikipedia and obtaining false information for however long it takes for it to be corrected, i understand teachers banning the use of it as a source.

An idea: if you let students know that you will accept it as a source, but warn them of the chances to find some falsified data and that it is best to verify the source (and that even if it is their source, if it's wrong they'll be considered wrong too); you are teaching them to be cautious and to be wary of information obtained on the internet.

[DSO SilverWolf]

wiki is a good sorce for info...but if someone can change it at anytime they want, then people will have to be careful whil on there.

[Gypsyfly PMS]

I adore Wiki and what it's creator has allowed us to do. Seemingly create a free living encyclopedia that is one great big unending project that we can all work on. It's an awesome thing.

But like anything, there are idiots that like to create e-graffiti all over the legit articles and screw things up for everyone. Many other articles are poorly worded or not researched thoroughly, which unfortunately renders many articles unreliable for school use.

Many of my lit teachers allowed us to use spark notes or cliffs notes to further our understanding of the material, but they never allowed it on any of our works cited or any documents as an official reference source.

So personally I would say allow your students to use it as a personal point of reference. But as far as allowing it on their Works Cited or on the final drafts of any document as a reference, that would be a no.

[Chocopolka]

As an English teacher, you should have your students use more than 1 source on their assignments. Wiki could be one, and the others will either back up the Wiki or conflict with it(and depending on the nature of the other sources(like ''Official'' etc): other sources>wiki usually)

[PMS Coolsvilla]

Originally Posted by Chocopolka

As an English teacher, you should have your students use more than 1 source on their assignments. Wiki could be one, and the others will either back up the Wiki or conflict with it(and depending on the nature of the other sources(like ''Official'' etc): other sources>wiki usually)

Oh, I already know I'll be that teacher you hate because they make you have a bunch of sources on a paper. I think that on some subjects, you can't begin to write about it without looking at a few different places. I'll still be cool though, I promise.

I had a teacher for one of my classes and she only let us use sites that had .edu on the end. It made the paper really hard to write but the information was more reliable. It made it even funnier when you had conflicting sources, though, and I had to do extra research just to see which one was accurate. I thought that was a llittle too strict but it weeded out all of the extremely unreliable sites.

I think that I agree with you, Gypsyfly, and I'm going to not let them use it on the paper but they can use it to get general information on their topic.

[H2O Xyanyde]

I dont like the word "Wiki" it kinda creeps me out. It reminds me of people trying to make turntable scratching noises. I hate that! (But if those other djs want to battle, they know where to find me!) Oh, and regarding Coolsvilla's sig, what about Science? Its I before e, and its after c and it doesnt sound like a, and its not the weekend yet!

[H2O Fate]

You could be one of those teachers who checks wiki for faulty info before referring it to the students. thats a good way to check. anyway if your teaching high school seniors *i just got out of highschool* they will check ANY site you put down on paper to get a good grade.

[Kal-El]

I think Wiki is a great site. I use it all the time.

Sure anyone can change the information on there, but isn't that true for all information found on the internet? There's a reason you should never use a single source for any research project, and that's so that you can check the information you're getting. If multiple webpages you're looking at are all giving you the same kind of information, then chances are the information is correct.

I've had experience before the internet (that was forever ago!) where I'd be using books (yes those paper things in that place where you're not allowed to talk) to do a research and had 2-3 books give me different information (numbers we slightly different, etc)

No source is 100% right, so you have to always use as many as possible to get the best possible idea of what you're looking for.

Wiki shouldn't be banned as a source, but the kid that gets a D on his paper because he only had Wiki as a source deserves that D because he didn't do his work properly. It's not Wiki's fault. It's the person that uses ONLY Wiki's fault.

[l F0CUS l]

I use it every once and a while, but I usually just read the article and then go to the source it was taken, and then get my info from that source. There are certain articles that are lock-in, they can not be edited, or they have been approved by whoever runs Wikipedia as a good article, undisputed. I am sure there is a section on Wikipedia somewhere, that tells you about questionable articles, and whether or not you should trust certain articles, and how to determine to trust them.

[Sexy McDoomington]

Wikipedia is great for looking up random BS, but anyone who uses it as a source (cited or uncited), is typically too lazy to pick up a book and find the same information. I am a sophomore in college and its disheartening to see classmates use Wiki as a source, especially because most kids who use it will just find some random book title on the same subject and use the book title to cite the wiki info.

[[-Mug3n-]]

Wikipedia is the best thing sence sliced bread.

Infinate knowlage on Absoulutely Anything amd Anyone. awesome-ness to the Max. ^_^

[edx]

No. Actual acredited information should be refrenced. Some of the Wiki articles are writen by very insightful people. The problem is being insightful is not the same as holding a Masters or PHD in a subject.

[H2O DropinBodys]

I Use wiki but usally Cross-check it because again ANY ONE CAN Use it lol

[Limafoxtrot]

Wiki may be ok as a starting point to get a frame of reference, but generally its terrible as source. Anyone being able to edit means many edits are done with people who have agendas. A case in point I'll give you from my own experience. In looking at wiki entries about our company we noticed some factual error in our company history about who was the CEO when, as well as some wrong product dates going back into the 40s and 50s. We logged in and changed them. 3 days later when we looked - they had been changed back to the incorrect information. After a couple cycles of changing them - our systems were IP banned from making corrections. When we contacted wiki's authors they said our information could not be viewed as neutral and was at odds with what their 'expert' believed.

That experience pretty much brought me to the conclusion that wiki is worthless - and not actually interested in accuracy.

[PMS Wedge]

Originally Posted by Sexy McDoomington

Wikipedia is great for looking up random BS, but anyone who uses it as a source (cited or uncited), is typically too lazy to pick up a book and find the same information. I am a sophomore in college and its disheartening to see classmates use Wiki as a source, especially because most kids who use it will just find some random book title on the same subject and use the book title to cite the wiki info.

This man speaks the truth! And HI SEXY

Most people have iterated how I feel on the subject. Wikipedia is a great starting point if you don't know where to find information, but it's not a legitimate source to cite information from.

Even if people aren't intentionally messing up the info, the people who write the articles aren't necessarily experts on the subject; thus it's much better to use a trusted, reliable source.