The point isn’t that Wikipedia is wrong, the point is that your research papers should cite primary sources published by the field instead of a generic encyclopedia. Even if the pages on encyclopedia are maintained by respected authors, it’s not immediately obvious, and the information is likely surface level and not worth citing.
The issue is not that Wikipedia is wrong, unreliable, superficial or not worth citing, the issue is Wikipedia is not a source.
Contrary to what schools teach for some reason, the ultimate goal of citing sources it to tell where the information comes from, not where one found it.
By nature, Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia doesn’t create or analyse information, it just compiles it. No information can originate from Wikipedia, so Wikipedia is never the source of anything. The primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page are.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in any way, but in my school days encyclopedia britanica was “a valid source” and Wikipedia was considered not. Despite them essentially being the same thing, and I recall at some point a study showing that Wikipedia was more accurate in general
Wikipedia in particular isn’t the problem here, it’s citing encyclopedias as sources (or any tertiary source in general)
Most teachers before college tend to ask for citation as “where did you find that information” to judge your work based on the reliability / their opinion of the reliability of those sources / their opinion of the “quality” of your research process. Which is understandable in the context of grading papers, but that gives the wrong idea to students about why citing sources is necessary.
In practice, citations are about information traceability and verifiability rather than some nebulous and often subjective “reliability” or “accuracy”.
Knowing that you found some information on some website is useless. What’s interesting is who originally came up with that information, how and why. From there, one can judge whether that information can be trusted. And trust in sources evolves with time, articles may get disproven or discredited, so it’s important to link to original sources rather than just saying “the editors of some encyclopedia said it was true at some point / found sources that they assumed were good at the time”
Wow, I can’t believe that you are getting some flack for this. Numerous times I’ve read a Wikipedia article, followed the citation, only to discover that the Wikipedia contributor had cherry-picked from a paper, giving a misleading summary.
Or that the editor misquoted the source entirely. I’ve even found articles that are littered with “citation needed” that have persisted as such for weeks or months.
I think sometimes people unfairly discount Wikipedia’s utility and overinflate its problems, while others are too cavalier about them. Wikipedia is a useful starting point for research as long as the researcher has the knowledge required to evaluate articles and perform further inquiry into their sources.
Growing up, pretty much all our hick schools had were encyclopedias; when wikipedia showed up it felt like they were just against the ease of it’s use. Smarter kids would still use the sources cited in Wikipedia, but teachers hated when you referenced a research paper because they couldn’t find it.
I disagree. The problem was always teachers being afraid of technology. The whole point of a paper is to show that you know the material. If you write a paper and read an entire synopsis of the material and have to explain it in a way that improves not only your reading comprehension but also your writing skills, is that not the entire point of education?
I feel like this is one of those bell curve memes. At the start you see that it’s publicly edited and you turn away. Then you see the extensive source citations and why not? Then you get involved in editing Wikipedia and you see what constitutes a “source” and what happens on the talk pages. And you’re right back to not ever citing Wikipedia.
Seriously though, Wikipedia isn’t going to be nearly in depth enough for any research paper worth a damn after you do your first couple. And that’s because those are meant to teach you how to do research papers. Wikipedia isn’t as bad as AI but anyone who’s neck deep in a field will find problems with any Wikipedia page about their field. And it just gets worse the more politicized your field is. So the answer is as it always was. Go to the primary sources.
An encyclopedia is not a source. I don’t think you fully grasp what any academic paper’s source is. It must be a first-hand account or direct evidence. It is the research paper you mention, not the wiki article the paper was mentioned on. The problem isn’t teachers afraid of technology. You can’t use print versions of encyclopedia Britannica as a source either. Part of education is also knowing how follow academic rigor. Remembering and understanding are only the first two steps in the process. Applying (writing the paper) is the third step. But if you fail to understand primary sources and how to conduct academic research, then you will never be able to truly progress beyond that (leading to: analyze, evaluate, and create)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
Wikipedia disagrees with you, although I do think it depends a lot on the level of education you’re at. In academia you rarely want tertiary sources if primary sources are available.
It turns into a game of telephone where you’re forth in line when you could just as well be second in line, since Wikipedia recommends using secondary sources for its articles.
The point isn’t that Wikipedia is wrong, the point is that your research papers should cite primary sources published by the field instead of a generic encyclopedia. Even if the pages on encyclopedia are maintained by respected authors, it’s not immediately obvious, and the information is likely surface level and not worth citing.
The issue is not that Wikipedia is wrong, unreliable, superficial or not worth citing, the issue is Wikipedia is not a source.
Contrary to what schools teach for some reason, the ultimate goal of citing sources it to tell where the information comes from, not where one found it. By nature, Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia doesn’t create or analyse information, it just compiles it. No information can originate from Wikipedia, so Wikipedia is never the source of anything. The primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page are.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in any way, but in my school days encyclopedia britanica was “a valid source” and Wikipedia was considered not. Despite them essentially being the same thing, and I recall at some point a study showing that Wikipedia was more accurate in general
Wikipedia in particular isn’t the problem here, it’s citing encyclopedias as sources (or any tertiary source in general)
Most teachers before college tend to ask for citation as “where did you find that information” to judge your work based on the reliability / their opinion of the reliability of those sources / their opinion of the “quality” of your research process. Which is understandable in the context of grading papers, but that gives the wrong idea to students about why citing sources is necessary.
In practice, citations are about information traceability and verifiability rather than some nebulous and often subjective “reliability” or “accuracy”.
Knowing that you found some information on some website is useless. What’s interesting is who originally came up with that information, how and why. From there, one can judge whether that information can be trusted. And trust in sources evolves with time, articles may get disproven or discredited, so it’s important to link to original sources rather than just saying “the editors of some encyclopedia said it was true at some point / found sources that they assumed were good at the time”
Why not just use chatgpt instead
Wow, I can’t believe that you are getting some flack for this. Numerous times I’ve read a Wikipedia article, followed the citation, only to discover that the Wikipedia contributor had cherry-picked from a paper, giving a misleading summary.
Or that the editor misquoted the source entirely. I’ve even found articles that are littered with “citation needed” that have persisted as such for weeks or months.
I think sometimes people unfairly discount Wikipedia’s utility and overinflate its problems, while others are too cavalier about them. Wikipedia is a useful starting point for research as long as the researcher has the knowledge required to evaluate articles and perform further inquiry into their sources.
Growing up, pretty much all our hick schools had were encyclopedias; when wikipedia showed up it felt like they were just against the ease of it’s use. Smarter kids would still use the sources cited in Wikipedia, but teachers hated when you referenced a research paper because they couldn’t find it.
I disagree. The problem was always teachers being afraid of technology. The whole point of a paper is to show that you know the material. If you write a paper and read an entire synopsis of the material and have to explain it in a way that improves not only your reading comprehension but also your writing skills, is that not the entire point of education?
I feel like this is one of those bell curve memes. At the start you see that it’s publicly edited and you turn away. Then you see the extensive source citations and why not? Then you get involved in editing Wikipedia and you see what constitutes a “source” and what happens on the talk pages. And you’re right back to not ever citing Wikipedia.
Seriously though, Wikipedia isn’t going to be nearly in depth enough for any research paper worth a damn after you do your first couple. And that’s because those are meant to teach you how to do research papers. Wikipedia isn’t as bad as AI but anyone who’s neck deep in a field will find problems with any Wikipedia page about their field. And it just gets worse the more politicized your field is. So the answer is as it always was. Go to the primary sources.
An encyclopedia is not a source. I don’t think you fully grasp what any academic paper’s source is. It must be a first-hand account or direct evidence. It is the research paper you mention, not the wiki article the paper was mentioned on. The problem isn’t teachers afraid of technology. You can’t use print versions of encyclopedia Britannica as a source either. Part of education is also knowing how follow academic rigor. Remembering and understanding are only the first two steps in the process. Applying (writing the paper) is the third step. But if you fail to understand primary sources and how to conduct academic research, then you will never be able to truly progress beyond that (leading to: analyze, evaluate, and create)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia Wikipedia disagrees with you, although I do think it depends a lot on the level of education you’re at. In academia you rarely want tertiary sources if primary sources are available.
It turns into a game of telephone where you’re forth in line when you could just as well be second in line, since Wikipedia recommends using secondary sources for its articles.