-
Asked by zaslawska to Gioia, Iain, Jo, Leo, Mariam on 23 Jun 2010 in Categories: General.
Question: Do you consider Wikipedia a valuble resource? Or is it too unreliable for most applications?
-
Gioia Cherubini answered on 14 Jun 2010:
I admit I use it as a starting point if I don’t have a clue about something, but I never stop just at wikipedia, because everybody can edit it and there could be invented things. I trust something that I read on internet only if I read the same thing at least on 3 different pages.
-
-
Joanna Watson answered on 14 Jun 2010:
Like Gioia, I will often go to Wikipedia to look something up quickly – although it’s not always a good idea to trust what it says on there. What it can be really great for is finding links to pages on other sites that I know are reliable.
For example, the first 3 links in the notes section of the Wikipedia entry for cancer are to Cancer Research UK, the World Health Organisation and the American Cancer Society, which are all really reliable sources.
-
Mariam Orme answered on 14 Jun 2010:
Actually, Wikipedia is generally very good in my experience. Most articles have references to back up what they say, so you can check up on things if you want to. It’s certainly a good starting point for finding information.
-
Leo Garcia answered on 20 Jun 2010:
Wikipedia can be a very valuable resource. It is always worth checking the references, though – but this is the same for any source of information. I think that I would consider Wikipedia a more reliable resource for some information than the Daily Mail and other tabloid newspapers.
In science, it is very important to know where people are getting their information. That’s why all scientific publications contain ‘references’ – to other, peer-reviewed scientific publications, so that the reader knows they can trust what the publication says. I would think that all newspapers (and news programmes) don’t have this – but, funnily enough, wikipedia does. So at least you have the option to see if the information is incorrect!
-
Iain Moal answered on 23 Jun 2010:
Some articles are very good, but some are also very suspicious. If I were writing a scientific paper, wikipedia would not be a suitable reference. It is always best to find the primary reference in science. I do use wikipedia to find formulas and things though, because if they work as they are suppost to, then I know that they are right.
Comments
Marianne commented on :
I have to agree with Gioia here, who works in the same building as me!!
I didn’t realise you were on IAS2010 as well – nice surprise.
Wikipedia is a good place to start when you don’t know much about a subject at all. It is usually referenced so you can see what the sources used to write the article are like, and there are often links to other pages with more information.
It should never be used as a reference in itself; more original sources are required. I don’t find it a much less reliable place to find information than the old-style encyclopaedias like Britannica, except that the public can edit it so it’s a lot more fluid and people are often putting jokes up!
But as long as you can spot those, I think it’s fine – there’s a lot more information in there, generally, than you can get in any book, but it’s always good to go back to the experts once you know what you’re looking for.
Daniel commented on :
Like Joanna, I think Wikipedia is a nice place to find links to good resources on topics that I have no detailed knowledge about.
I also tried to contribute a bit on those things that I do know more about, but my enthusiasm cooled down soon due to the extent of vandalism there — I simply do not want to spend my time correcting things all over again that had already been correct in an earlier version, or arguing with anonymous users about these corrections. So, as a contributor, I now prefer Citizendium, a younger (and still much smaller) cousin of Wikipedia where registration under real names is required, and expertise is brought in via a relaxed variant of peer review.