I do not think Wiki should be allowed as a reliable source, HOWEVER it is a good source. Let me explain.

When something is posted properly on wikipedia, it will list citations and references that you can access.

This means you can get a huge overview of the topic, and then look into the listed sources for exact information pertaining to the project. All of this, on one website.

It's very convienent, but because anyone can post anything on wikipedia, it in itself is not reliable enough to use as a source.

Wiki isn't a source. Wiki cites information from other sources, so I believe that 99% of it is true. But there is always that 1% that I can't be sure of, so I would watch myself just in case, you know? Can't ever be sure.

But Wiki does make things easier when you're searching something up unlike google which may not always give you the information you need.

In that sense, GO WIKI!

Though some of it can be changed at any time, there are tons of people out there that go and change it right back. I would say it was a good source, it gets the details mostly from other sites from what people found. Like I said..it is being updated constantly.

Yes! The major things are actually checked over pretty thoroughly, for sources and whatnot. So if you quote or use wikipedia as a reference, it's probably best to check it over time before you turn it in, in case there's anything wrong found. It makes looking up things or related articles a whole lot easier.

I think that wikipedia CAN be a reliable resource if they have a bibliography at the bottom pointing to all their resources.. if the page your looking at does not have a bibli.. then its worthless.

I am in collage and last term I had a teacher who said he preferred us NOT look at wiki for our info.. but that if we had to to make sure if it has resources.. and to probably look at them sites instead..

This term however I have a teacher who doesn't really care were we get our info as long as we put in our bibliography as to were we got the info.

i have to add that my post was about the main wiki site. the sub wiki sites that are on a set topic are different and do offer a lot of help as they are not abused like the main site.

I wouldn't say that wiki is a source, though 99% of the information that wiki displays is factual. There's always that remaining one percent to doubt, which is the main reason why.

Wiki DOES prove great points, and is more efficient than google, which is why I myself use wikipedia to get information myself. Wikipedia IS an excellent source if you can find the places that the information comes from, in short, if you can successfully cite the source.

Still, wikipedia [i]does not[i/] qualify as a source, though it does have the potential.

Wikipedia should not be allowed as an entirely reliable source because it is easily edited by anyone. Sometimes, if the subject is obscure, that subject is not reviewed until a very long time after. Even then, people often will not bother to check the citations to make sure that ALL of the things the author of that particular article stated, are in fact, backed up by the citations.

Wikipedia is a quick reference to get the general information about things that are common...however, it's like streets..the brightly lit ones where everyone goes are safe and reliable..the darker winding ones are not so much so. It should be used only as a quick ref. to give you an idea of where to begin digging for material, what other key words are related to your research, and what to look for or another way to word things that might bring up better search results..but NEVER to replace normal scientific journals or published books, since both are often peer reviewed (meaning....people who specialize in phylogenetics for example, critique and review others who write about phylogenetics..so you don't have an art major giving criticism about pharmacy, or an engineer giving a critique on ballet.)

Yes, it would be shorter, easier, less work for students if they could just cut and paste what's on wikipedia to their reports...but no, that would not be a good reliable source on all subjects.

Wiki is a jumping off point and nothing more, in terms of school assignments. I really don't understand people arguing for the use of wikipedia, other than laziness. Wikipedia provides citations and it's easy enough to take the citations, find the book and the what information you need from there, not to mention, you usually unearth more useful information that you might really need when doing this.

Most schools and libraries these days facilitate inter-library loans so it really shouldn't be a problem getting any of the books listed in a citation on wikipedia, unless it's an out of print book and doesn't leave a library's reference center.

Wikipedia is a fantastic source to start a paper, but it can't be a real source, and there is no excuse for it to be a source when they provide you with the information to study the topic further with more expertise behind the words written.

Anything in which the fans can change the information can not and should not be relied upon....You could write that elephants are the cause for christmas if you wanted...

For college reports I think that it isn't reliable enough. For high schoolers I think that it should be allowed because you can tell if the work is cited or not (it tells you) so you know if it's reliable. Plus it's a lot better at getting rid of the junk now than it used to be.

I really don't like the argument that anyone can change it though. Anyone can put something on the internet, so why does having it all on different sites than on one site make a difference?

I guess you could try. Wiki has 99% truce in it, so I wouldn't say no. As long as you site the sources, I don't think that's that much of a deal. As long as there's factual information. Wiki's information is often sourced from other sites...

meaning, use the other site as a source. If you want to be on the safe site, that is.

Wiki IS hell more useful though. They grant you the information you want right then and there unlike any other search engines which usually consist of porno links. D:

Anyhow, I like wikipedia, and I've been using it for quite a while now, and I love it. So, as long as the information is factual, and the sites are sourced, I'd 100% trust Wiki any day. ;D

I think that it depends on what you are using Wiki for. If you are using it for just some quick notes or links then Wiki is pretty reliable. If you need a large amount of information, then Wikipedia might not be the best source. I mean you might be able to tell whether information on there is real or not, but if you don't know a lot about what you are researching then it would be easier to get the wrong information.

Its a great source but it ain't reliable because anyone can add and change the info whenever they want

Originally Posted by Niren

Should wikipedia be allowed in schools as a reliable source of information?
My opinion is no It should not be used as a source in papers. Anyone can change the information to what ever they want it to be and it usually doesn't have sources. Though I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be used it does have a bace for which you can find scholarly sources on the topic that you use.

Actually, it's depend on what kind of information it is.

Not all of informations in Wikipedia are freely editable to the open public.

Some of the more through, researched and referenced informations are locked so only people with real background or confirmed informations can have access to that section and update the informations there. Those kind of informations, I believe you can use in school or other educational purpose, because they are backed with strong references

The ones that are freely editable are those that are still considered as open informations, as in not check throughly by experts or still don't have enough references to back them up.

"Locked" articles on Wikipedia are only there to stop people vandalizing [with "penis!" or whatever], not because of their importance and truth. The only permanently [at least semi-protected] are the guidelines for editing the Wiki, which calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

So if you're writing a serious academic paper, don't reference wiki. Do visit the sites linked, and use those as references instead.

Its a very reliable source, as long as you don't freakkin' Mess with it and edit it and search...bad things!! And for god sake we've got teachers who look at what we do, the zoom around and peek into our research. I think it should be allowed.

wikipedia should not be a reliable source. I mean seriously, I could go up there and change all the details under one topic and bang! your essay would be a totally mess and you would fail. My school let use quote wikipedia, but only as a helping source. Cannot only use wikipedia as the only source of all essays and projects. We need to use some source from RELIABLE places such as fiction books and such, since from those sources, you can be sure that it's realiable. Some information on wikipedia are useful and when no one messes with the site, like emeraude said above, then it's realiable enough. There are people that check wikipedias, but not that EVERYTHING on there gets check. My advice would be read through everything under what you search first, then find another site that is NOT wikipedia and read through that too. I think that in your brain, you can obviously compare the differences in the sites. If you're still not sure, read another site. I bet comparing the information on three sites should be enough to figure out some truth. Again, I think going for an encyclopedia that is outdated would be better than wikipedia. But the convenient of just clicking wikipedia.com and search is too easy. So I would recommend comparing sources if you want to use wiki.

Teachers DO know their information, so don't think that writing an essay from wikipedia only won't get caught. You never knew what sites your teacher goes to. I bet they search your topic the same way you do, and be sure that the informaiton you're seeing is the same information that your teacher have read tons of time. Trust me, they know!

It's reliable for background information, but should not be used as a cite-able source. Wikipedia constantly monitors what is being edited, so most of the time the information will be accurate. However, it is an encyclopedia-- although wiki contains many things not known by others, it falls under the category of encyclopedias, which are viewed as containing "common knowledge." It is supposed to be used for reference only.

Wikipedia can be used but since anyone can edit it perhaps it should not be used as a source.

Wikipedia could be used for background infomation or other little snippets of infomation. Details and important facts should be looked up elsewhere. It is public where anyone can edit. Most infomation should be accurate, but there are some fools out there who just post the randomest stuff. Don't be a fool and go off and do that.
Wikipedia could be used as a source, but at times it might not be reliable. Use at your own risk. Please do not use in overdoses. Side effects inclue hair lose, seizures and red eyes. Always read labels before use.

My teachers never let us use Wikipedia as sources in our papers and I'm completely for that. It's perfectly understandable why they do not want us on sites that do not have reliable information.

With that said Wikipedia can still be valuable for research because most pages have a list of sources for the information on them. I know when I'm having trouble finding things I usually use these sources to see if I can find something over there and it helps a lot.

I don't think it should. It's good for quickly looking something up, but the information could not only be wrong, but it's mostly plagiarized information. When I was in Marine Science class, we had to write two term papers, and in our instructions it specifically said NO WIKIPEDIA! Even if the information is correct, you have no idea what the original source is, therefore you can't really cite it in your paper.

If wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source, then neither should any information found on the internet (unless of course it's just an internet publication of an actual literary document) be deemed a reliable source.

People can put whatever they want on the internet, and if they don't have any source of visible feedback, most people wont ever know it's wrong. Everyone should just stick to books, and online accredited databases.

It's not that wikipedia itself is the problem. It's that the internet as a whole is; it just so happens that wikipedia is a more popular place of misinformation.

Wikipedia is a great source when used as a way to gain background knowlege or find out what something is. When it's being used as a handy Encyclopedia that covers a wide variety of topics, it's absolutely perfect. They are pretty good at fact-checking and demanding citations, and their automated error checkers and page reverters are effective at what they do.

However, it is not a scholarly work, and shouldn't be cited as such for a couple of reasons. First, there is no way to maintain the text in the form you cited it. The paragraph you quote in your essay could be there the day you write your paper and gone the next. This makes it impossible to make your work accountable or to allow other scholars to access the information you drew upon. Second, it can easily be used to conceal academic dishonesty. You could write something on Wikipedia and then use it as proof in your essay, which really means you wouldn't have proof at all. This is usually caught quickly, so it's not a problem when you're looking for background, but it's still a major danger in a research paper. Third, it's an Encyclopedia, anyways, and those are notorious for being rife with errors. Research material should come froms specific arenas that contain peer-reviewed research that is fact-checked by journals who know the topic. At the very least, it should come from news outlets, which are at least accountable to their editors and readership.

Originally Posted by jelachu

I don't think it should. It's good for quickly looking something up, but the information could not only be wrong, but it's mostly plagiarized information. When I was in Marine Science class, we had to write two term papers, and in our instructions it specifically said NO WIKIPEDIA! Even if the information is correct, you have no idea what the original source is, therefore you can't really cite it in your paper.

Actually, most of Wikipedia is cited, not plagiarised. If you want to use that information, you merely have to track it back to the original work, which is not that difficult.