Wikipedia is not a source. It’s fine to take information from Wikipedia. But if you are doing actual research. You need to cross reference that with the source cited to make sure it’s accurate.
Most Wikipedia pages have their sources listed so you can easily look them up and verify their validity.
If there are no sources cited. You should be cautious.
It is unreliable to an extent. If you have expertise in anything at all go look at the wiki for it and you likely will take issues with parts of it or more. That being said it’s good enough for a generalized overlook of something so I wouldnt 100% trust the minutae in a wiki but the general concepts are typically ok
The cool thing about Wikipedia is that if you have expertise in a topic and find something incorrect on it, you can edit the page to be more accurate. The trickiest part is finding and adding relevant sources. There’s a learning curve to it, but at least anyone who’s used to writing research papers should have experience with that already.
I mean when writing an essay you should really be sourcing from the original source not Wikipedia, good thing Wikipedia lists the original source the info came from so you can just use that. (Unlike some websites the teacher said were better then Wikipedia which were just full of unchecked bullshit)
They should have always been teaching to use Wikipedia as a beginning of research. Go to wiki, follow the cited sources and follow those cited searches if anything was referenced.
There was always a double standard though compared to something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Pre-internet, for practicality, you couldn’t really check the cited sources on Britannica, so you took it as word of god. They’re a major publication! Huge money and people who wear suits and monocles wrote it! Posh British sounding name! How could they be wrong?
Except that when researchers compared Britannica to Wikipedia for inaccuracies, they found Britannica to contain a much higher rate. So why did Britannica keep being held in higher regard? Pure appeal to authority.
Some wikipedia articles have been edited by science/history deniers/fascists/liars and it is difficult to determine if whats written at any point is true or edited. Thats where the statement comes from.
That Wikipedia was unreliable
Wikipedia is not a source. It’s fine to take information from Wikipedia. But if you are doing actual research. You need to cross reference that with the source cited to make sure it’s accurate.
Most Wikipedia pages have their sources listed so you can easily look them up and verify their validity.
If there are no sources cited. You should be cautious.
It is unreliable to an extent. If you have expertise in anything at all go look at the wiki for it and you likely will take issues with parts of it or more. That being said it’s good enough for a generalized overlook of something so I wouldnt 100% trust the minutae in a wiki but the general concepts are typically ok
The cool thing about Wikipedia is that if you have expertise in a topic and find something incorrect on it, you can edit the page to be more accurate. The trickiest part is finding and adding relevant sources. There’s a learning curve to it, but at least anyone who’s used to writing research papers should have experience with that already.
I mean when writing an essay you should really be sourcing from the original source not Wikipedia, good thing Wikipedia lists the original source the info came from so you can just use that. (Unlike some websites the teacher said were better then Wikipedia which were just full of unchecked bullshit)
But for everything else Wikipedia is great
They should have always been teaching to use Wikipedia as a beginning of research. Go to wiki, follow the cited sources and follow those cited searches if anything was referenced.
There was always a double standard though compared to something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Pre-internet, for practicality, you couldn’t really check the cited sources on Britannica, so you took it as word of god. They’re a major publication! Huge money and people who wear suits and monocles wrote it! Posh British sounding name! How could they be wrong?
Except that when researchers compared Britannica to Wikipedia for inaccuracies, they found Britannica to contain a much higher rate. So why did Britannica keep being held in higher regard? Pure appeal to authority.
Some wikipedia articles have been edited by science/history deniers/fascists/liars and it is difficult to determine if whats written at any point is true or edited. Thats where the statement comes from.