+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
General Chat Thread, Wikipedia - reliable? in General; In a lesson recently I heard a teacher briefing her class (yr6) to do research (use google.) She very commendably ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham,UK
    Posts
    44
    Thank Post
    29
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0

    Wikipedia - reliable?

    In a lesson recently I heard a teacher briefing her class (yr6) to do research (use google.) She very commendably warned them that they should think about what they found and not just copy it, because internet sources are not reliable (excellent so far) and particularly Wikipedia. This really grabbed my attention as I'm a great fan of Wikipedia. It is often my first port of call for non-commercial information and I use it so much that I even feel obliged to contribute to their annual appeal.

    I am well aware of the enormous amount of twaddle on the internet - I contribute some of it myself! But even if W is not all solid rock, I feel on firm ground with maybe the odd pothole, usually well signed. In fact I sometimes wonder if they're not a bit overcautious, when I see hoards of "needs citation" tags by things, some of which I've regarded as facts for donkeys years. Having spotted few errors in text books over the years, I'd thought W is at least as good as a public library.

    And if I can't relax at least a little bit in W, are there any web sites you do trust?

    What do others think?

  2. #2

    elsiegee40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,090
    Thank Post
    1,795
    Thanked 2,197 Times in 1,624 Posts
    Rep Power
    775
    Even Wikipedia tells people not to rely on its acuracy. They say to verify the information against other trustworthy sources, such as a newspaper....

    I tell kids the story of the Romanian football fans who wear shoes on their heads according to a national newspaper a few years ago. This gem of information was a lazy hack who'd believed a joke entry on Wikipedia and printed it... so given it was in a national newpaper did this now make it true?

    You have to treat everything on the internet with a pinch of salt, and everything in the newspapers and books for that matter. Cross check information against more reliable sources if it's important that you are 100% accurate.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cheshire, UK
    Posts
    340
    Thank Post
    68
    Thanked 60 Times in 42 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    There have been a number of printed newspaper articles that have been proved to be inaccurate because the journalists were lazy and just took what was written in Wikipedia.

    My favourite was my next door neighbors soon who wrote an essay on the live of William Shakespeare. In the essay he had him working in several places the most notable being Starbucks! He had no concept that this could be wrong. That information came from Wikipedia.

    I too refer to Wikipedia, but always check vital facts with other resources, especially if an error will make me look like an idiot.

  4. #4


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,917
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 1,973 Posts
    Rep Power
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrown View Post
    I am well aware of the enormous amount of twaddle on the Internet
    Wikipedia isn't immune to twaddle.




    Quote Originally Posted by dbrown View Post
    are there any web sites you do trust?
    None at all.

  5. #5

    DaveP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Can't talk now: The mother-ship is calling!
    Posts
    8,912
    Thank Post
    351
    Thanked 1,291 Times in 882 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    1129
    The Wikipedia entry for the school where I work has been altered several times in the ten years that I have been employed there.

    The content we have had to remove included reference to the supposed far-right political leanings of the teaching staff and the supposed practice of leading field trip students off into the distance with the students eventually being burned on a bonfire. Perhaps those who undertake this soft of vandalism find it amusing. I am sure that our Wikipedia entry is not the only one to suffer such editorial contributions.

    Back to the question in your post: I can't think of any websites I visit regularly where I trust the content 100%.

  6. #6

    FN-GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    15,969
    Thank Post
    886
    Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,480 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    450
    Wikipedia is reliable providing what you are using from the site is backed up with a credible source. The numbers next to statements in Wikipedia are sources. Check them out and it will tell you if its reliable. If you know how to use it properly, its a good tool.

  7. #7

    vikpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    5,974
    Thank Post
    674
    Thanked 1,384 Times in 1,146 Posts
    Rep Power
    350
    I trust EduGeek 100% for an honest opinion.
    As for the big W, even if you regard it as fact is the need for a citation a bad thing. It's a good sign and develops good skills for the students.
    Equally, anything you find on Google should be corroborated. They themselves have some good resources on how to do searches and then evaluate the results on their education site.
    I too use W for info but mostly for backing up something I think is true or have read elsewhere. I frequently go 'back' and check another source though or follow a subsequent link for verification.
    Sounds like a good lesson being taught.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    389
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 95 Times in 61 Posts
    Rep Power
    45
    Nature ran a study a few years ago which judged Wikipedia to be on a par with The Encyclopaedia Britannica for scientific topics (Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up) - but note that they didn't judge them both accurate, but to be about as inaccurate as each other.

  9. #9

    vikpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    5,974
    Thank Post
    674
    Thanked 1,384 Times in 1,146 Posts
    Rep Power
    350
    Well you can always use the encyclopedia as a source can't you?

  10. #10

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,693
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,455 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Put it this way - if you use any encyclopaedia as a source in degree level work, your work will be marked as zero. Or at least, that was what I was told at uni.

    Encyclopaedias are not meant to be the source of all knowledge - they're a starting point, somewhere to get quick access to info to set you on your search for knowledge. The advantage of Wikipedia is the requirement for sources. You can go to an article and then go onwards to actual journals, articles in the media (which themselves have to be taken with a pinch of salt; for example the recent story about the aggrieved dentist who removed all of her ex's teeth when he came in for a check up).

    It is important that people learn that what they read anywhere should be questioned.

  11. #11

    vikpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    5,974
    Thank Post
    674
    Thanked 1,384 Times in 1,146 Posts
    Rep Power
    350
    I don't believe you!
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Put it this way - if you use any encyclopaedia as a source in degree level work, your work will be marked as zero. Or at least, that was what I was told at uni.

    Encyclopaedias are not meant to be the source of all knowledge - they're a starting point, somewhere to get quick access to info to set you on your search for knowledge. The advantage of Wikipedia is the requirement for sources. You can go to an article and then go onwards to actual journals, articles in the media (which themselves have to be taken with a pinch of salt; for example the recent story about the aggrieved dentist who removed all of her ex's teeth when he came in for a check up).

    It is important that people learn that what they read anywhere should be questioned.

  12. Thanks to vikpaw from:

    stevenlong1985 (24th March 2013)

  13. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bradford
    Posts
    69
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    9
    That was what I was told, even if the entries are true. But, It gives you a nice list of sources you can check yourself, so what I did at uni was use Wiki as a starting point for reports, then it was a matter of investigating these sources and quoting them directly.

    But I was told by a member of the library / research team in a lecture once that Webopedia was fine (even though its more of a geek dictionary then a e-cyclopaedia).

  14. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hey hey hey, stay outta my shed. STAY OUT OF MY SHED.
    Posts
    1,025
    Thank Post
    238
    Thanked 193 Times in 149 Posts
    Rep Power
    107
    There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a starting point for research, but in general I agree with the teacher here. It's not an actual source. Anyone can edit it at any time, after all. I'd suggest that any source needs to be read with a critical eye, and (as I don't know anything about your school or that particular class) this may not be a skill that the class have developed adequately to deal with a resource that can be edited by someone else in the class who just got there quicker than everyone else to claim anything they liked.

  15. #14

    unixman_again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    720
    Thank Post
    29
    Thanked 143 Times in 109 Posts
    Rep Power
    135
    As expected Wikipedia has an article on just about everything: Reliability of Wikipedia.

    Also there is Errors in Enyclopedia Britcannica and Errors in Funk and Wagnalls. The second link is not wikipedia.

    I always preferred Funk & Wagnalls to Britannica and World Book best of all.
    Last edited by unixman_again; 25th March 2013 at 10:21 AM. Reason: added links

  16. #15

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,804
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 583 Times in 504 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    224
    If you have to link to Wikipedia, link to the specific revision of the page you're interested in rather than the generic article link.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Students should use Wikipedia: founder
    By FN-GM in forum IT News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th December 2007, 10:35 PM
  2. Looking for a really reliable Wireless system!
    By Heebeejeebee in forum Hardware
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12th November 2007, 04:35 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29th September 2006, 12:57 PM
  4. ICT Reliability / Prevalence of problems
    By crc-ict in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26th October 2005, 02:21 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •