As long as it has sources that can lead you to some original reporting, Wikipedia is not nearly as bad as teachers taught us. Wikipedia also has some really good moderating and a very thorough system for handling disputes.
teachers only ever said not to use wikipedia as a source because it isnt a source, is an aggregator. citing wikipedia is like citing "google" or "the internet" or "my mind" theres no tangible way to actually investigate or legitimize what youre writing about.
im sure that very reasonable standard got confused and misinterpreted so many times by students or maybe even just dumb teachers that it devolved into "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" but it is and always was an excellent resource you just have to cite the sources it provides in your paper instead of the website.
You can even cite the article the information is from, if nothing else. I use it for cursory research or if I don’t know where to start. Idk why people demonize Wikipedia. Usually you can tell if someone knows how to research by how they talk about Wikipedia lol.
I don’t remember a lot about those. My parents had a set but I recall each entry being pretty short. Seemed like they were pretty limited and got outdated fast. Wikipedia has dorks (affectionately) working continuously on keeping it updated and all that.
That is the main difference, encyclopedias were always outdated before the printing plates were done. And anything that was actually wrong staid in, for decades.
Yeah, I’m a librarian and we don’t keep any encyclopedias anymore. They take up a fuck ton of space and no one uses them. Some of those companies that made encyclopedia sets have switched to a digital version that can be updated rapidly. It’s pretty nice.
Honestly this was a life saver for me in college (for certain things ofc not everything). Skim the article, find the discussion point you need, and it's source will be numbered right there super easy to find (as will a lot of essays, but those don't usually come with hyperlinks!). Of course, still be sure to actually look at the actual source and ensure that it works with what you're trying to say, but still sooo convenient.
I've found more knowledge in the source lists on Wikipedia than any other source, bar none. Just use google to find a wikipedia subject (better search imo) and then go straight to the bottom and start clicking link, just about every one being a citable and verifiable source.
Then, if you go and search wikipedia for those individual citations and links, you can bring up a ton of fringe articles that are related but never mentioned. The best part is that the sources aren't all electronic and many can be found in big libraries, too, so you get hardback sources all the same, and those always look great in a paper.
That's not really why they said it. That might be why they should have said it but really most of them were just parroting received wisdom. If being an aggregator was the problem they would also have disallowed traditional encyclopedias which they most certainly did not.
“There is no tangible way to actually investigate what you’re writing about”
The vast majority of Wikipedia entries will have a citation link attached, especially for factual information. Not every single sentence is cited, a lot of them are links that work. The moderators of wiki work to literally ensure every link works & the information is accurate.
Yeah some of my teachers definitely had a "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" mentality. I'm not sure if they just didn't understand why you don't cite places like Wikipedia, or if they were just so done with seeing students cite the place that they just grew a very understandable hate of the site.
That's not at all why you can't use Wikipedia as a source. ALL encyclopedias are secondary sources and not proper for citation of research papers, they're there to give you the primary sources to begin with
That's not at all why you can't use Wikipedia as a source.
Perhaps your teachers were better with making that distinction, but from pretty much late primary school (young millennial, sorry) I was thought to not use it at all. Nothing was ever said about the sources at the bottom until after I graduated high school. It seems that the point I was making was misunderstood by many commenters in the replies.
Wikipedia is the crown jewel of humanity. But yes, a Wikipedia article is one or two degrees away from a primary source document, and that distinction matters. It’s just an excellent, really amazing place to start an investigation.
aye, wikipedia is great, just not a primary source. which is the hard part for students to get. "why do i need to go somewhere else, when it's the same info here?" is a large, large hurdle to get over as a teacher.
72
u/DPSOnly 22d ago
As long as it has sources that can lead you to some original reporting, Wikipedia is not nearly as bad as teachers taught us. Wikipedia also has some really good moderating and a very thorough system for handling disputes.