Truth by Consensus: Wikipedia as a Scholarly Source?

"academia is broken..." - that's an extremist point of view, if I ever heard one.

Wikipedia is a good beginner source - it gives a good basic overview on most topics and leads you to other sources. It is not (and was never intended to be) the be all and end all of sources. Part of being an academic student is realizing that you need to verify your sources. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true - and that goes for print materials as well as internet sources.

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. As an instructor, I won't accept Wikipedia as a source. I want my students to use sound data - not made up information.

I am with Laura C. on this ... what it may not give directly, it gives the links to otherwise ... it is the one of the best things going for the Internet and mankind as a whole.

The day and age of reliance strictly upon "authorized" sources of information AS IF they and the history "they" wrote were the truth should be long gone in our distant past ...

Truth is relative and personal, subjectively defined ... all else are but facts, and facts ARE ONLY what the believers in them use for a mutual communication base ... nothing more.

Reality is what we think it is for all practical purposes, we create our own, based upon how we think, and jointly co-create our social reality which affects our own, interchangeably to some degree, with others in our accepted society we relate to ...

In the realm of God there are no restrictions, no separate absolutes, all is change and all is relative ... the only definitions we use are but the ones we have devised and use, often those passed down to us historically and just "trusted" to be factual and even truthful ... NOT necessarily so ...

From the greater picture of Spiritual possibility, we would NOT be so limited, anything we can conceive is possible ... even the lame restricted orthodox so-called "reality" we have all mutually constructed and mutually accepted to be "ours" ... it truly is a fictional fabrication of our minds jointly held, supported and defended by the status quo system of entrenched authority figures who effectively control us and heard us down that same path of conformity to "their" standards that fulfil their desires where we as their followers, and effectively their slave labourers, fulfil "their" dreams ...

IMnsHO. Yippy for Wikipedia ... but beware of concerted and concentrated efforts by certain organizations to distort the information to "their" advantage ... that danger has always existed, it applies to the orthodoxy of academia as well, always has.

Because Wikipedia has so many users reviewing it I find it to be quite reliable. Besides giving an initial overview, I use it to remind me of facts I once knew but can't quite remember.

I wouldn't trust it for extremely new and controversial information, though, as individuals and groups will come in and make changes for their own good. For instance, I've heard that the staffs of competing politicians have changed the information on each others' wikipedia pages.

I m with Laura on this...

I don't think Wikipedia is "one of the best things going for the Internet and mankind as a whole," however I do think it is great if you are seeking a general overview of a subject.

As a general rule of thumb, I think that if you stumble upon a Wikipedia entry that is full of opinions (Ex- This organization robs you of money, this person is a scam artist,) it is not a legitimate post and should be taken down immediately. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is full of articles based without fact. Because of this, it can't be taken seriously as an academic source.

I don't think Wikepedia is any great source for informtaion. In fact, I resent that it is invariably the first thing that actually pops up if you are actually looking for something.

I agree with Anne. When it comes to people and business, I don't think it's right when Wikipedia shows up on a search engine before the actual company or professional site. Although that can be effected by that company/person's website and SEO management, it still bothers me to no end.

As far as academics go, I see nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a starting point to find other resources. However, students should know not to cite it.

I do not allow my students to use Wikkipedia as a source... however, they may use it as a starting point, and move forward from there to find credible sources of reference.

It seems Laura C is spot on, and most "reasonable" intellegent people can sift thru information, follow leads, and form their own accurate conclusion.

Yet, there's also Joe T and his need for sound data. Fair enough. If there was sound data in the public domain, the hoax of global warning would be shown for the fraud that it is too. Its quite amazing the Wikipedia page is dominated / edited / censored by Jamnes Hansen's students.

Point proven, more of the same. The burden of reality and truth is on free thinking people, not media driven tripe.