Censorship sucks, giving credit rules.
The point isn’t that Wikipedia is wrong, the point is that your research papers should cite primary sources published by the field instead of a generic encyclopedia. Even if the pages on encyclopedia are maintained by respected authors, it’s not immediately obvious, and the information is likely surface level and not worth citing.
Wow, I can’t believe that you are getting some flack for this. Numerous times I’ve read a Wikipedia article, followed the citation, only to discover that the Wikipedia contributor had cherry-picked from a paper, giving a misleading summary.
Growing up, pretty much all our hick schools had were encyclopedias; when wikipedia showed up it felt like they were just against the ease of it’s use. Smarter kids would still use the sources cited in Wikipedia, but teachers hated when you referenced a research paper because they couldn’t find it.
I disagree. The problem was always teachers being afraid of technology. The whole point of a paper is to show that you know the material. If you write a paper and read an entire synopsis of the material and have to explain it in a way that improves not only your reading comprehension but also your writing skills, is that not the entire point of education?
I feel like this is one of those bell curve memes. At the start you see that it’s publicly edited and you turn away. Then you see the extensive source citations and why not? Then you get involved in editing Wikipedia and you see what constitutes a “source” and what happens on the talk pages. And you’re right back to not ever citing Wikipedia.
Seriously though, Wikipedia isn’t going to be nearly in depth enough for any research paper worth a damn after you do your first couple. And that’s because those are meant to teach you how to do research papers. Wikipedia isn’t as bad as AI but anyone who’s neck deep in a field will find problems with any Wikipedia page about their field. And it just gets worse the more politicized your field is. So the answer is as it always was. Go to the primary sources.
Wikipedia is unreliable for politically controversial topics, I’ve seen multiple articles on the Gaza genocide with specific claims citing fucking Times of Israel with no other supporting evidence whatsoever, Times of Israel has been caught lying more than once and shouldn’t be used as a source at all. Each article is only as good as the sources cited and they’re not all equally well sourced, it is entirely possible to insert false info into articles especially if you’ve got a well funded organization behind the effort, and even if it is eventually caught and corrected it will already have served as useful propaganda for anyone reading the article in the interim.
In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn’t “Big Bird”, but instead “Big Bert” (as opposed to regular sized bert)
It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like “go ahead, look it up” and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. “Big Bird (Or “Big Burt” for Canadian rebroadcast)”
It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.
My historic house has a Wikipedia page, I’ve tried updating it with information I know is accurate (I mean, I live here), but it was always removed. Must have a primary source that’s not “individual research” like, you know, counting the bedrooms or fireplaces.
Which is what lead to me getting our city’s newspaper to interview me, print several facts and stories, and now that published article is a primary source.
During this process I realized that Wikipedia is pretty goddamn serious.
Yeah I was reading about the editing guidelines and they have a principle that surprised me at first:
Basically, you could edit an article with information you know is true (like your bedrooms or fireplaces), but truth is not the criteria that edits get tested upon. It must be verifiable by a source.
Pretty cool that you didn’t just give up and actually got the local newspaper to interview you! That’s awesome!
To a degree. But you also run into the classic XKCD problem of Citogenesis. This isn’t a hypothetical, either.
Had you, for instance, mentioned something you read about your own historical house on Wikipedia in the city’s newspaper, it would now be a cited piece of information that Wikipedia links onto.
There’s also the problem of link rot. When your small town newspaper gets bought up by ClearChannel or Sinclair media and the back archives locked down or purged, the link to the original information can’t be referenced anymore.
That’s before you get into the back-end politics of Wikipedia - a heavy bias towards western media sources, European language publications, and state officials who are de facto “quotable” in a way outsider sources and investigators are not. Architectural Digest is a valid source in a way BanMe’s Architecture Review Blog is not. That has nothing to do with the veracity of the source and everything to do with the history and distribution of the publication.
That is hilarious. At that point if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is bad should have grown up on encyclopedias. Looking back at my childhood set, they are hilariously riddled with errors.
Yes, but they have professional errors. Not those errors that could have been written by just about anyone.
Right?! I’d rather have a bunch of autistic nerds patrolling their favorite subjects for stupid changes. Turns out that works pretty damned well.
People paid good money for those errors though! Not like those freeloading people doing it all for donations…
No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn’t be cited.
The great part of wikipedia is going to their actual resources ans reading and understanding those. What you were supposed to learn was HOW to research things and come to your own conclusions, not just how to cite information.
No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn’t be cited.
Wikipedia is generally terrible for anything that was politically controversial since Wikipedia has been a thing. A lot of why is very intentionally buried in layers of bureaucracy and wikilawyering to make it look like totally reasonable, neutral point of view decision making. One of the big routes to viewpoint control on Wikipedia is arguments about notoriety and what is or is not a “reliable source” and what sources are sufficient to discuss a topic.
You shouldn’t cite wikipedia in a paper because it’s a tertiary source. Somehow that got lost in translation sometime in the 90s.
You shouldn’t cite any other encyclopedia either, because they’re “some guy” writing a paragraph or so about a thing. I think it was Britannica that Tolkein wrote a lot of the “W”'s for. I’m sure he did a great job, but it’s not exactly easy to fact check him either.
You know what, I was gonna agree because last time I was googling some sikh history as a sikh it seemed to be driding the indian governement but looking at the articles now it has correct casualty estimates. I swear last time I looked it was framed like the government estimate for casualties at 83 killed 900 injured was accurate, now it frames it like how every news article not on wikipedia did with 10k deaths being the likely estimate.
I see no mention of israel tho, which is odd since operation blue star was an israeli trained operation, had the isreali flag as the symbol and name lol. I can’t find the older article from india celebrating the anniversary of them working together, training soldiers to massacre civilians, but its out there somewhere, times india 1990s or 2000s.
Maybe im not looking hard enough but youd think the country that trained the operation and has the operation (blue star) named after their flag would pop up more in the article.
Sidenote my grandpa left india shortly after that time working on a ship and was lost at sea for a bit. He was saved by an isdf vessel and they were apparently nice and bought him a first class ticket on the plane to his destination in america. Just a nice reminder that not all people anywhere are bad, just like america might seem like a hellscape but the average person here isn’t the vocal maga person you see online, they just clock in. We are sikh tho not muslim so maybe that would’ve had a different result.
He was working on the ship and continued to work on ships after btw, not immigrating through the ship, think he was already a us citizen by that point, man died like a year ago so I can’t really ask him for clarity.
I think it would be reasonable to teach kids to look at Wikipedia to find sources.
It’s not enough to just find sources they have to learn how to critically read them.
Honestly I think it comes from a misunderstanding regarding secondary sources vs primary ones. Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources. It’s not good practice to cite secondary sources without primary ones, but a lot of people (namely, teachers) don’t grasp why which leads these sources to get classified as bad.
That, plus Wikipedia is accessible without the usual gatekeeping and money behind what textbooks and encyclopedias have, which adds to the sources “credibility.” Money means marketing, including constant email campaigns targeting people like me trying to validate whatever textbook they’re peddling. (And in case you wonder if they’re evil, they sometimes offer kickbacks to adopt their expensive textbooks for my university classes).
Fedi users already get that, though, as that’s a common problem FOSS usually has. Point is, wiki lives in a weird place because no, you shouldn’t cite it just like you shouldn’t cite textbooks, but yes, it’s perfectly valid so long as you check those sources. And, speaking from experience, some students really don’t understand as I see citations for so much worse.
Wikipedia, as well as encyclopedias and textbooks, are secondary sources.
Very clear.
Secondary examples include:
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias (also considered tertiary);
Tertiary examples include:
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (also considered secondary);
They do have a handy table later though:
| Primary | diaries - world war |
| Secondary | biography - world war |
| Tertiary | encyclopedia - world war |
Wasn’t arguing I just posted the link to source from the wiki article like my teachers would have wanted 😜
Oh, snap, it is so on!
Back when I was in school they outright censored Wikipedia. Fuck that shit
Same here, but everyone used it by…just citing the sources at the bottom of the page. It was honestly the dumbest logic ever. Professors telling you, you can’t use Wikipedia because anyone can edit it, but being ok with the literal source the Wikipedia article used for its info…just made zero sense.
deleted by creator
I’m on the fence about not citting primary sources. And especially in the sciences, where it’s actually the slow, boring, long process of many publications and many datat sets coming together to conclude something 'in the aggregate '. Like I’ll usually go to a review or meta analysis paper as a citation, because it’s combining and comparing the results across studies.
And really, a living document like Wikipedia is more like that kind of review or meta analysis paper.
I’m not disagreeing that were taught to go for primary sources, but in some ways, they’re actually less reliable than secondary sources if those secondary sources are taking in a a broader collection of primary sources, which something like Wikipedia is.
Actually, are you sure a meta analysis isn’t a primary source? Having worked on one in the past, you’re often having to reanalyze data and the finished product is quite unique.
Even “structured literature reviews” I think count as primary sources, since the author adds to the literature their own perspective and they are generally peer reviewed.
That said, when you cite things professionally, you will often have hundreds of sources. Most researchers, legal scholars, etc., just keep a database of their citations for easy callback. It’s important because at the upper levels, different authors might speak of the same objective findings in two different ways and with two different frameworks, so the aggregate loses that.
It’s not something non-professionals necessarily need to care about, but you do want to train undergraduates on that proper methods so they’re ready if and when they go to graduate school.
I haven’t done it in a while, but I would make little edits to Republican political figures. If they “ended” or “stopped” a business. I change it to “aborted” the business.
Some they would fix, but not all of them.
“Yeah, did you read that on Wikipedia?”
Yes, I did.
Just like I used to read things at the library in the 90’s, and no-one would’ve thought to mock that. And one of the books I read was some Soviet scientists from the 50’s describing how spiritual auras work in real life.
Although that was in the 00’s I just didn’t have the internet all the time while in the army.
There’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia too, of many different kinds. Some smaller pages exists purely for someone’s PR. I’ve seen blatantly false (but “verifiable”) stuff too but the most common thing is to have pages that are just creative with the truth.
Also sometimes I’ll notice an article make multiple different claims that all point to the same source and then check the source and realize it is not a valid source for all of those claims, just some.
And also there’s stuff that gets flagged as verified based on extrapolation of data from a combination of sources. For example: one source says “John Doe facing 1 billion dollars fines if found guilty” and another source says “John Doe was found guilty”, then the article says “John Doe fined 1 billion dollars after being found guilty” as verified, then you go search the web and find no mention of any fines actually being issued following the verdict.
Btw this is not an argument against Wikipedia in any way.
How is it not? Genuine question, I use wiki a lot, and generally trust the articles, though I have seen some inaccuracies before.
Because there are mistakes anywhere. Wikipedia gives you the tools to easily verify what you’re reading.
Okay, so you’re saying that although the editor made a mistake or was biased, but unlike a lot of other resources, they have to show their sources, so if you care to look, you can see if it is true?
If so, I think that makes sense.
Pretty much.
Theres also resources such as revision histories that add an extra layer of information that you can’t find in other information sources.
It’s not perfect, but it’s the best around.
I just meant that the intention behind my comment was not to attack Wikipedia in general.
Oh, you know, I didn’t even realize you replied to yourself.
It’s not just smaller pages. Brands and people pay for PR people to groom their page to present in a good light. Sure, it includes the information but it is groomed to be “neutral” and minimise the negative perception. Look at Musk’s page as an example.
But shouldnt fact be neutral? For example: “the holocaust was evil and killed countless innocent civilians” or “the holocaust resulted in (actual estimate) civilian deaths” The former is emotional and the latter is factual, but both highlight the perpetrated evil against the innocent.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying your point.
Watch this bs:
The holocaust is alleged by pro-Jewish groups to have resulted in the deaths of six million Jews
Feels gross to read, right?
Yes.
But it’s also possible to just quietly omit information.
The holocaust resulted in millions of deaths
Sounds bad
the holocaust resulted in the death of approximately six million Jews and a further eight to ten million people from other groups such as Russian POW, Slav, Roma, Sinti, and homosexuals.
Puts figures to how bad it was.
…and homosexuals
Imagine if western powers had carved off a chunk of the middle east and then said “and this spot is just for the gays”.
I have a feeling that country would be fabulous
“And we shall call this land upon which the lord hath bestow upon us, South Beach. Or maybe the Mission. Idk, depends on the mood we’re in”
To give some credit, I don’t think that 30% of the global population of the gays or Roma or Slavs was killed by the Nazis. But, still, wow.
I frequently check Wikipedia citations, just to be disappointed. Wiki sources can be a great shortcut to good citations, but often I realise much of an article’s content is built out of the soggiest cardboard.
Wikipedia is like the War Thunder forums on steriods minus the who leaking classified information.
Nah fuck this attitude, if you ever tried to use Wikipedia for an actual research project you’ll know how dubious those “”“sources”“” can be.
It’s actuslly an exercise one of my TA friends sets for students when they’re just learning to research things properly. She gives them a claim on Wikipedia and and asks them to find the primary source for it. So they end up spending hours following chains of citations, until they are checking out old books from the library to try and find excerpts that some blog post that was cited in a paper that was cited in a newspaper, that was cited in a different blog post that was cited in another news article that was cited by Wikipedia claims exists, just to find out it doesn’t.
But seriously, don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
don’t take Wikipedia seriously unless it cites a primary source directly.
You’ll regularly find a link to a secondary source that contains a reference to a primary source. If you just want generically available historical, scientific, or broadly epistemological knowledge, its great. If you want an on-the-ground testimonial from an eye-witness, it may give you the start of a breadcrumb trail towards your destination.
That said, the bias endemic to Wikipedia is largely a product of its origins - primarily English, western media focused, heavily populated by editors from a handful of global north countries. If you want to learn about the history of a mayoralty in Saskatchewan going back to the 18th century, its a rich resource. If you want to find out the political valence of the major political parties of Nepal or Azerbaijan, you’ll find a much thinner resource.
Some of that is a consequence of the editors (or absence of them) around a particular topic. Some of that is a consequence of the moderators/admins graylisting or outright blacklisting sources. Newer sources - 404media, for instance - aren’t tracked while older sources that have changed management significantly and lost some of their trustworthiness - WSJ, CBS, National Geographic, as recent examples.
In this day and age, where newspapers will publish any bullshit dictated by their corporate / billionaire owners, and any idiot can publish a book, how do we know the sources themselves are even valid? Like just because it’s physically printed doesn’t make it any more true.
Wikipedia may be flawed, it’s because people are flawed. That’s why the scientific method and editors exist. That does not only apply to Wikipedia, but science in general. Because I’ve seen some finely aged rubbish with an exquisitely greasy texture in the science community. IMHO.
I once posted a Wikipedia article to r/TodayILearned, and my post went really popular. Someone a few hours later then edited the Wikipedia page to contradict my Reddit post title, reported my post to the subreddit mods, and my post got taken down.
Reddit gonna reddit
Imagine being the level of asshole that would spend the time to do this. I’m not surprised, just…disappointed.
Why be disappointed. That’s more effort than most people go through on the internet. I’m actually impressed.
Is that Wikipedia page accurate today?
I’m not sure. It was about the “turbo” button on 80s PCs, and how its function could be confusing to users depending on how it was wired. You look at the talk page and edit history there’s still a lot of arguments about this.
Yeah unless the fact that the original Wikipedia article was grossly inaccurate in person that edited actually did edit it correctly then this sounds like a bullshit made up sorry. I mean not that it didn’t actually happen because that shit happens all the time. But if we compete I would have been edited and then had somebody report it within usually a few hours or so it would be removed and returned it back to the original state once it was verified false.
