Its not alowed in my school.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source... but then you know i used it on a report i did on Mount fuji. and well i got a B and well it was also cause i did not finish my slide show thing... some of our teachers dont allow is but then some do.... well yeah it all depends on the subject i am guessing who knows...

Not as a credible source for an essay or something, because really, you find some crazy stuff on Wikipedia if you visit at the "right" time. XD

It's just not reliable purely on its own because it can be edited by hundreds upon thousands of people. Granted that it's pretty heavily moderated, again, if you catch it at the "right" time then its content might be wrong. =/

I think wikipedia is a good place to start a paper. It gives you a basic understanding of the subject and, perhaps more importantly, it references you to other sources. Then, you can look up the other sources (which are usually more scholarly than Wikipedia itself) and get some good material for your papers from there.

I've used Wikipedia often to look up quick things that I was curious about, but I've never used it for a paper and I can't imagine that changing. Nonetheless, it certainly has it's good points.

Originally Posted by Amari Tsuki

I think wikipedia is a good place to start a paper. It gives you a basic understanding of the subject and, perhaps more importantly, it references you to other sources. Then, you can look up the other sources (which are usually more scholarly than Wikipedia itself) and get some good material for your papers from there.

I've used Wikipedia often to look up quick things that I was curious about, but I've never used it for a paper and I can't imagine that changing. Nonetheless, it certainly has it's good points.

I agree one-hundred percent. Wikipedia has definetly helped me on many classroom assignments.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, yes there are those who keep an eye on edits, but how are we to trust their judgment? Have the writers on those articles did enough research?

While wiki is a good place to start to know about something, I don't think they're that reliable. Kind of like, don't take their words as facts unless you have cross examined it with another source.

It's good site but it don't have all information and shouldn't be replied on as only source, I use it as well as other sources to earn me more points.

It's not good as anyone can edit it and get us wrong information.

It's excellent for starting out sources.

It really depends on teachers and schools if it's allowed or not and for whatever reasons.

One handy thing about wikipedia is that articles are required to cite references. So you can immediately jump to links to other sites and such which verify the information in the article.

Of course whether or not those sites themselves are reliable, I can't say for sure... lol

However, I think having discussion pages for each wikipedia article helps editors scrutinize mistakes and false information. Most vandalism I've ever found disappears quite quickly. I think they crack down on that sort of stuff pretty effectively.

My theory is that uncyclopedia.org was invented by vandals who were sick of their work being compromised by stingy wikipedia users :D

People are gonna gasp at me, but I cited Wikipedia in my senior thesis when I graduated uni a couple years back.

Did I get any marks off? Of course not, because it was only one of over a dozen sources I used! Just like I use research articles and studies to get sources, I use Wikipedia. Or used. I don't exactly have to write term papers anymore.

You should never use just one source, you should never use and uncited source and you should always check the original source of the citations! You can get bad information from newspaper articles, too.

I believe that Wikipedia isn't a very reliable source. I've seen a vast amount of false information and nonsense put into Wikepedia.

Not at all, a class mate of mine edited one of the pages on purpose giving false information xD

If he can do it anyone can so you never know if what you are reading is accurate.

I use Wikipedia all the time. xD I think it is a reliable source. It has most of the information that you'd find on different website. It's just all crammed into one. XD

Definitely not. Most of the information is accurate, but I've also seen some false information posted there as well. Lol, a while ago, wikipedia actually stated that in a future episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender, Sokka would invade the village of Ba Sing Se in a jeep.

Still, I can see why many people are tempted to use wikipedia as a source. It's often the first website that appears after a google search. But a good idea would be to look at the sources cited at the bottom of the wikipedia page instead. Those usually aren't edited by random users and come from credible sources. This method allows to to find all of your information from wikipedia anyway, just citing a different, more accurate source. That's what I usually end up doing. :wink:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can go in and edit it, as long as you have an account. In fact, I once looked up "DNA Electrophoresis" on it and the article read: "I love muffins."

I was like... o_<; What?

Wikipedia is a good jumping off point -- you can get a general idea of what you want. But if you're going to cite, I wouldn't use it. I would take whatever you've garnered from it and look for more credible sites backing up the claims made in Wikipedia.

no, any one could go in and change the information; there have been lawsuits about companys changeing info about themselves in wikipeadia.

anyways most of the stuff on wiki was cut and pasted from mor credible sites. So It doesn't really matter, just don't list it as a work cited or that you used it.

For formal research never ever use wikipedia as a cited source. It's a disgrace and a mockery of research methods.

The problem with wikipedia is that just about anyone can change the contents. Sure mechanisms are in place to mitigate any irresponsible posting BUT still it's not 100% sure to be accurate.

But still you could use wikipedia to get more credible website since links are readily available.

In schools? No.
Many people look down upon it as a source of information and make fun of it.

It's ok for quoting in blogs and stuff but I think it's not really suitable for school.

I disagree though that using it as a source of a knowledge is a disgrace and mockery of research methods.
Yes, anyone can go in and make changes...which should be better controlled but that's why members of it discuss what articles or parts should and shouldn't be edited or taken out completely.

Most of the information is accurate

I agree. Because of other sites and stuff I've read, I can tell that that the information is - usually - fairly accurate.

People shouldn't look down upon it as a source of knowledge just because it's easy to use.

No, so many people can actually make shit up, so you honestly don't know what is accurate and what isn't. Stick to the .org, .edu, or .gov sites. Those have the most accurate sources.

Wikipedia is great for background information for a research paper or topic, but to actually source it on a term paper is ridiculous. There are so many other reliable sources that one can use. For example, EBSCOHost, JStore, and stuff like that. However, I have seen my Global teacher use Wikipedia for her handouts. >.>

i think it is not a reliable source. I tcould have been, if it was bascially pages from teh encyclopedai. however, they lack the trutth because jut anyone could post anything on teh site, and make the facts completly useless. However, if they coudl remove any user made facts, and only put good facts on it, i would consider it a reliable source.

Most schools when writing a serious essay don't use wikipedia as a legitimate source already and colleges and universities dont use wikipedia as a citation source.

I say yes because it one of the last free spaces of information with many sources from many people (just a note, not the average Joe). Accepted encyclopedias follow one path and that path is usally bought or widely accepted from a bought belief.

Wikipedia has been useful to me when I wanted to find out everything I could about Africa and its people, cultures and civilliaztions (even reading about C.A. Diop and his books). The articles and refferences were not one source but many from each side--Eurocentric views and research versus Afrocentric views and research. Overall, Wikipedia retains middle ground by gathering all sources even if they are polarized.

Sure pages can be edited with false information, that is why there are moderators and editors. I am amazed at how fast a page I previously messed up is returned to its orginal state. :twisted:

And now I ask, why trust one single source when history itself is largely lies to make someone or something look good?

I don't think so, it's an online blog basically. People can change info and therefore it's not really acurate or true.

If you want to use a site use an encyclepidia one where the information can't be changed. It's more trustworthy.

I've never found anything on there to be untrue, although i've heard many a time it's not to be trusted. I personally don't think it's that easy to edit entrys. I wanted to ad something constructive on more than one occasion, yet it denied me access.

My school has already shut the site down because of the false it brings about people. You can search Gaiaonline there, probably even Menewshaw, and it will bring up something that someone else had posted. I'm sure that other people's usernames are even on their with a bunch of critics and a bunch of vulgar language that is absolutely unneccesary.

Wiki is an unreliable source because other users and others from the internet can actually go in and edit as they please.