Wikipedia isn't Scholarly meaning?

[whm1974]

I mentioned Wikipedia to new Employee of the Mental Health Acency That handles my Housing and Meds. That was awhile ago and he mentioned that Wikipedia is is not Scholarly. No farther explaination why... Perhaps I should have snidely told he that I never claimed it was....

 

AFAIK such Papers are either outdated and/or Books long out of Print... Or behind some Expensive Paywall...

 

I see Wikipedia Valuable for Citations to look up.

 

Found this:

 

https://www.ititser.com/why-wikipedia-is-not-suitable-for-academic-research/

 

[captain_to_fire]

Because Wikipedia can be edited by everyone. It doesn’t need to undergo any sort of peer-review compared to a textbook which undergoing a panel review or a journal where objectives, methodologies, and others are reviewed. 

[whm1974]

14 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Because Wikipedia can be edited by everyone. It doesn’t need to undergo any sort of peer-review compared to a textbook which undergoing a panel review or a journal where objectives, methodologies, and others are reviewed. 

To be fair: The Creators and Editors of Wikipedia never claimed that the Site was Scholarly to begin with. Is it Useful? Well certainly for quite a few things.

[Chris Pratt]

Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the information available there is only as good as the sources cited. As such, it's a great place to start your research, but the citations are the scholarly works, not Wikipedia itself.

[Zodiark1593]

Plenty of easy pickings for citations from Wikipedia. Just don’t make the mistake of citing Wikipedia itself. 

[tikker]

As other's have said it can be edited by anyone (once you make an account IIRC) and isn't peer-reviewd. That does not mean Wikipedia is wrong or outdated, but it shouldn't be taken as fact. Of course its quality will vary per field. Natural sciences tend to be fairly accurate and well maintained in my experience. It's a great reference point to start deeper research and can serve you well as a quick primer on the subject.

On 6/11/2021 at 2:22 AM, whm1974 said:

AFAIK such Papers are either outdated and/or Books long out of Print... Or behind some Expensive Paywall...

Yep. Academia is really annoying with all their BS paywalls that can cost you hundreds just to read 5 pages of research. At universities you can usually access a bunch of journals, but even then you are still at the mercy of what subscriptions the uni has. This can get really annoying when I find a book or paper that might have what I need, but I can't access through my institute or its library.

[whm1974]

29 minutes ago, tikker said:

Yep. Academia is really annoying with all their BS paywalls that can cost you hundreds just to read 5 pages of research. At universities you can usually access a bunch of journals, but even then you are still at the mercy of what subscriptions the uni has. This can get really annoying when I find a book or paper that might have what I need, but I can't access through my institute or its library.

Berkley does have a Free Student Primer on Evolution here:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

I find this to a great resource not only to refresh what I know about biology but to explain what Evolution is and isn't to other Folks who are not Scientific Minded.

[RoseLuck462]

All you need to do is link the articles the wiki page itself uses. Don’t just cite wikipedia.com 

[Commodus]

On 6/10/2021 at 8:22 PM, whm1974 said:

I mentioned Wikipedia to new Employee of the Mental Health Acency That handles my Housing and Meds. That was awhile ago and he mentioned that Wikipedia is is not Scholarly. No farther explaination why... Perhaps I should have snidely told he that I never claimed it was....

 

AFAIK such Papers are either outdated and/or Books long out of Print... Or behind some Expensive Paywall...

 

I see Wikipedia Valuable for Citations to look up.

 

Found this:

 

https://www.ititser.com/why-wikipedia-is-not-suitable-for-academic-research/

 

Even when I was a teaching assistant over a decade ago, we told students never to cite Wikipedia. People here have already mentioned why (it's not peer-reviewed, content can change), but like you said — it's only really useful for finding links to the sources themselves.

 

And whatever you do, be sure to look at the original sources rather than grabbing just the quotes referenced in Wikipedia. You want to be sure they're the real quotes, and that you have the broader context. For that matter, I'd be sure not to rely solely on Wikipedia-linked sources, since teachers might spot that and point out that you've missed other important supporting articles.

[whm1974]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Even when I was a teaching assistant over a decade ago, we told students never to cite Wikipedia. People here have already mentioned why (it's not peer-reviewed, content can change), but like you said — it's only really useful for finding links to the sources themselves.

 

And whatever you do, be sure to look at the original sources rather than grabbing just the quotes referenced in Wikipedia. You want to be sure they're the real quotes, and that you have the broader context. For that matter, I'd be sure not to rely solely on Wikipedia-linked sources, since teachers might spot that and point out that you've missed other important supporting articles.

Thanks. I'm not using Wikipedia to do College Work. But to increase my own knowledge. Mostly older Computer stuff and Science Stuff.

[Jay427]

On 6/10/2021 at 11:26 PM, Chris Pratt said:

Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the information available there is only as good as the sources cited. As such, it's a great place to start your research, but the citations are the scholarly works, not Wikipedia itself.

Inconsistency of information is never useful, because it obfuscates the reliability of the entire network of sources by association, and which would then leave correct references subject to the same varying degree of manipulation and change over time to the same standard as those that are not which are held to the same overarching standard.  Scholarly is also a sweeping term which is based on opinion of those titled as "scholars" whom have stark disagreements with one another, even in the scientific fields, and is therefor subject to opinion of who is the more approved scholar (or noticed) rather than who is the correct one.  If you are looking for hard facts, do not go to wikipedia.  Go to wikipedia for the most popular or accepted concept within the lens of those who were able to be referenced, because that's all it is.

[Action_Johnson]

On 6/10/2021 at 5:22 PM, whm1974 said:

I mentioned Wikipedia to new Employee of the Mental Health Acency That handles my Housing and Meds. That was awhile ago and he mentioned that Wikipedia is is not Scholarly. No farther explaination why... Perhaps I should have snidely told he that I never claimed it was....

 

AFAIK such Papers are either outdated and/or Books long out of Print... Or behind some Expensive Paywall...

 

I see Wikipedia Valuable for Citations to look up.

 

Found this:

 

https://www.ititser.com/why-wikipedia-is-not-suitable-for-academic-research/

 

Of course it's not. This seems so obvious to me becuase nothing in Wikipedia is peer reviewed, nor verified by really anyone who's of any authority. I don't know about high school, but when I was in college, we would get an automatic F if we cited Wikipedia on anything. 

 

I've seen probably half a dozen articles on there that were either incorrect, or maliciously modified for humor.

[Mark Kaine]

Just because something was cited as a source on wikipedia doesnt make it inherently better, or more right or wrong.  Information found on the internet is generally pretty useless, as the "thruth" can and *will* be rewritten all the time.

 

Information in a book is far more tangible, and also cant be rewritten as easily, or in case your in actual possession, not at all.

 

[whm1974]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Just because something was cited as a source on wikipedia doesnt make it inherently better, or more right or wrong.  Information found on the internet is generally pretty useless, as the "thruth" can and *will* be rewritten all the time.

 

Information in a book is far more tangible, and also cant be rewritten as easily, or in case your in actual possession, not at all.

 

True. But it also can't be Updated or Corrected.

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

True. But it also can't be Updated or Corrected

And in many cases it doesnt need to, but it can be updated with a new edition if needed, which is great because then you can still compare it with the old version (which on something like wikipedia often miraculously "disappears"). Especially interesting  with very old books like encyclopedias etc.

 

 

[tikker]

13 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

nor verified by really anyone who's of any authority

This is not completely correct. There are professors and other experts that do make an effort to maintain (part of) the information on their subjects.

13 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

we would get an automatic F if we cited Wikipedia on anything

An F is maybe a bit harsh, but yes Wikipedia should not be your main source but a stepping stone.\

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Just because something was cited as a source on wikipedia doesnt make it inherently better, or more right or wrong.  Information found on the internet is generally pretty useless, as the "thruth" can and *will* be rewritten all the time.

 

Information in a book is far more tangible, and also cant be rewritten as easily, or in case your in actual possession, not at all.

 

Depends on what the source is really. If you cite a Nature paper as a source I'd believe it. If you cite Pete from LTT forums, I'd not take it as an immediate fact. Books are good for storing knowledge and teaching. For fast moving fields however they are a pain as they can't keep up with the developments enoug (or sometimes at all).

[12345678]

On 6/11/2021 at 2:58 AM, captain_to_fire said:

Because Wikipedia can be edited by everyone. It doesn’t need to undergo any sort of peer-review compared to a textbook which undergoing a panel review or a journal where objectives, methodologies, and others are reviewed. 

there are issues even in peer reviewed journals, it's full of trash, and often is difficult to put out trash out of the good stuff

 

anyway wikipedia actually has some moderation in it, but the moderation often is not unbiased, like if you take a look in any political article, you'll see biased stuff, or bot managed

 

anyway it really depends on the subject, for technically stuff, wikipedia might be a good start, while anything that involves politics, history, or social crap is likely to be biased, but the crapload in those subject (and not only) is not limited just to wikipedia, but in whatever subject

[dalekphalm]

On 6/10/2021 at 8:22 PM, whm1974 said:

I mentioned Wikipedia to new Employee of the Mental Health Acency That handles my Housing and Meds. That was awhile ago and he mentioned that Wikipedia is is not Scholarly. No farther explaination why... Perhaps I should have snidely told he that I never claimed it was....

 

AFAIK such Papers are either outdated and/or Books long out of Print... Or behind some Expensive Paywall...

 

I see Wikipedia Valuable for Citations to look up.

 

Found this:

 

https://www.ititser.com/why-wikipedia-is-not-suitable-for-academic-research/

 

Wikipedia is good if the article in question is well cited. 
 

A lot are. Some aren’t. 
 

When citing something from Wikipedia, it’s usually a good idea to look up the original citation and reference that instead. 
 

And yeah the quality of articles varies a lot, but they’re generally very good from a layman’s perspective. But in an academic environment they wouldn’t be good enough on their own.