Wikipedia
I just noticed that on Wikipedia's modest banner "You can help Wikipedia change the world!" they have the quote:
"Wikipedia is an invaluable research tool." — Anon.
Perhaps the irony is intentional. It does seem a good reminder of the limitations of Wikipedia as a source of information that can't be relied on - and the inevitable impact of that on its value as a source.
The media periodically gets caught out as lazy researchers use Wikipedia as their only source for a fact. (Although the media is keener to publish articles about all the 'edits' made by the government, CIA, Vatican etc.). I feel it is only a matter of time before I get caught out as well - Wikipedia is probably the site I visit the most as I can nearly always find the content I want instantly - yet how much of what I read is true?
I have been having quite a few debates recently about Wikipedia content - people seem (almost) universally agreed that it should never be used as a thesis reference - although a reasonable exception seems to have been its use as the original source of an illustrative figure.
It would be nice if over time Wikipedia got many more references for its articles - although I think this unlikely as it is such a gargantuan task and one that isn't particularly fun or easy for contributors. In the meantime I think I will have to treat everything with as large a pinch of salt as with the anonymous quote above.
A
"Wikipedia is an invaluable research tool." — Anon.
Perhaps the irony is intentional. It does seem a good reminder of the limitations of Wikipedia as a source of information that can't be relied on - and the inevitable impact of that on its value as a source.
The media periodically gets caught out as lazy researchers use Wikipedia as their only source for a fact. (Although the media is keener to publish articles about all the 'edits' made by the government, CIA, Vatican etc.). I feel it is only a matter of time before I get caught out as well - Wikipedia is probably the site I visit the most as I can nearly always find the content I want instantly - yet how much of what I read is true?
I have been having quite a few debates recently about Wikipedia content - people seem (almost) universally agreed that it should never be used as a thesis reference - although a reasonable exception seems to have been its use as the original source of an illustrative figure.
It would be nice if over time Wikipedia got many more references for its articles - although I think this unlikely as it is such a gargantuan task and one that isn't particularly fun or easy for contributors. In the meantime I think I will have to treat everything with as large a pinch of salt as with the anonymous quote above.
A
