: How credible is wikipedia? I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a research project (for example)

Vote Up Vote Down

From my own experience Wikipedia is very credible. In 2005 already it has been compared to Encyclopedia Brittanica I am always amazed when people start complaining about the quality of Wikipedia. The idea behind wikipedia is that it is managed by the community. If you find an error, just correct it. The success of wikipedia lies in the fact that people do edit.

Regarding using wikipedia as an original source. Don't! That is to stop reading and cite. A well written wikipedia article contains various citations to resources to backup the assumptions. Use these references. There is an example where a scientific journal even requires its authors to also submit their content to Wikipedia (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html).

My general recipe to find proper reference and get a brief introduction into a novel topic is:

Read the Wikipedia article on the topic
Follow references of this Wikipedia article and read these articles.
Once I have some understanding on the topic I use a scientific literature search engine to fine additional references. Scholar is just one of these services, but depending on the topic there is Pubmed, ACM, and many others
Browse social networks on citations like CiteULike and Connotea

So the main message would be yes, Wikipedia is credible, but like with the scientific literature don't take one source for granted and look for alternatives

just my 2cts

EDIT
This might be an interesting read on this topic: www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Is this for academic research? If so, the problem isn't that it's Wikipedia, the problem is that it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The founder of Wikipedia himself has been quoted saying:

that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”

If you're in university, use Wikipedia to get a general idea, and then do some damn research. If you don't know how to do real research, ask the librarians at your school to help. You may even have to open a book or two. Shocking, but true.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Do /not/ ever, under any circumstances use Wikipedia as a source for an academic paper. Because it can be edited by anyone and there is nothing validating Wikipedia's articles, they're highly unreliable and not acceptable in any professional or academic circles. Internet sources in general are frowned upon unless they come from professional or academic sources - colleges, academic journals, government studies, etc.

That's not to say Wikipedia is entirely useless. It's a great starting point. It can give you a great overview of a topic and help you get a basis for your paper/project/whatever. And the best part? Lots of it is sourced, so you don't have to go find information for yourself. If you want to say That George Washington did not return to military life until the outbreak of the revolution in 1775, that's fine. But instead of citing Wikipedia, click on the source and cite the source that Wikipedia uses.

(0)