Wikipedia editors turn to blackmail

[Yog]

Wikipedia includes it's sources. It's the teachers job, AS WELL AS the student's job to verify that source. Immediately disregarding wikipedia as a source of information, specifically because it's wikipedia, without doing any actual research into the sources used by wikipedia, is a bias.

 

They're assuming it's incorrect specifically because it's wikipedia, not because it's actually incorrect.

Exactly as you said...it's the teacher's AND the student's job to verify the source. That's the problem...if you're the teacher reading the article how on earth do you know the student checked the source? You don't, and likely didn't...because if the student actually verified the source don't you think he/she would have gone through the trouble of listing the ACTUAL source? Besides, that whole argument of "it's the teacher's job" and then going out of your way to make the teacher do more work reminds me of kids in high school throwing crap on the ground using "it's the janitor's job". Again, it's both of our jobs, I'll walk over to the garbage can and throw away my trash (the equivalent of listing the REAL source) and the janitor will empty the trash at the end of the day (the equivalent of the teacher checking the source). If I can't manage to get the trash into the can no amount of "it's the janitor's job" arguments means I'm any less of a slob and deserve whatever punishment is reserved for littering.

[Trik'Stari]

Exactly as you said...it's the teacher's AND the student's job to verify the source. That's the problem...if you're the teacher reading the article how on earth do you know the student checked the source? You don't, and likely didn't...because if the student actually verified the source don't you think he/she would have gone through the trouble of listing the ACTUAL source? Besides, that whole argument of "it's the teacher's job" and then going out of your way to make the teacher do more work reminds me of kids in high school throwing crap on the ground using "it's the janitor's job". Again, it's both of our jobs, I'll walk over to the garbage can and throw away my trash (the equivalent of listing the REAL source) and the janitor will empty the trash at the end of the day (the equivalent of the teacher checking the source). If I can't manage to get the trash into the can no amount of "it's the janitor's job" arguments means I'm any less of a slob and deserve whatever punishment is reserved for littering.

That doesn't change the fact that the teacher seeing the word wikipedia and immediately assuming it's inaccurate, is a bias. They don't know, they aren't bothering to check, even if the student didn't check. If the student listed the actual source, I would still expect the teacher to check. Just like I would expect the janitor to sweep and mop the floor, instead of saying "I empty the trashcan, it's their responsibility to put trash in the trashcan".

 

9 times out of ten, when I write a paper, I quote wikipedia and then give the source that wikipedia gave. I've never had a teacher question my sources. Which to me says one of two things.

 

Either wikipedia is generally trustworthy (which, it is, according to independent reviews on scientific articles on wikipedia)

Or the teachers aren't doing their damned jobs, or don't know what they're doing.

[Kamina]

All the wikipedio's think they're euphoric and highly intellectuals. *tips fedora*

[jos]

We were not allowed to us wikipedia during my study.. advanced plagiarism checking software will sniff you out

[Fetzie]

We were not allowed to us wikipedia during my study.. advanced plagiarism checking software will sniff you out

There is a difference between using a secondary source as a reference, and copy pasting a source.

[jos]

There is a difference between using a secondary source as a reference, and copy pasting a source.

We cannot even paraphrase or use it as part of any source...Any way Technically if allowed websites can only be secondary source..

[Miguel Batista]

I for one think wikipedia should not be relied upon as a source. I use extensively but I always check their sources and a couple of others. Problem is that wikipedia can be edited by anyone so, you just need to catch some poor edits before they are removed and you will have problems. In my line of work scientific journals is the way to go.

[LAwLz]

Wait, why is people in the thread hating on Wikipedia for this? I think everyone is misunderstanding the articles.

It is NOT Wikipedia doing this. There are companies who has a lot of Wikipedia accounts who uses those accounts to get pages deleted unless you pay them. Wikipedia are now trying to find and ban those fake accounts.

I repeat, Wikipedia are NOT blackmailing anyone. Companies that are independent of Wikipedia are threatening to misuse the system and get peoples' pages deleted.

[Sakkura]

Absolutely terrible source. Wackypedia? Way to be professional.

[Fetzie]

We cannot even paraphrase or use it as part of any source...Any way Technically if allowed websites can only be secondary source..

Wikipedia doesn't allow articles to be a primary source. They always have to have at least one primary source referenced. What my university let us do was use Wikipedia as a way to find primary sources on the material, but never to reference the article on Wikipedia itself.

[6God]

Mainly because they know if it was embraced by experts in their fields, that wikipedia would/could eliminate the need for colleges. Every source I've ever used, for every single paper I've ever written, in college, has come from wikipedia.

 

Which to me says either "we don't check sources" or "we see wikipedia and immediately refuse to accept it" which is a bias. Either way they aren't doing their jobs.

 

I think you missed the point of that rule entirely. 

 

Professors don't want students to become reliant on whats written on a wikipedia page. Professors want students to go and hunt down sources that are valid and peer reviewed. Professors actually encourage using what sources wikipedia articles use AFTER you've actually done what you're supposed to do and read those sources to verify the existence of what is being said. at that point, yea you can trust what Wikipedia has said FROM THAT ONE SOURCE. 

 

That doesn't give you carte blanche to just go around and think everything written is true. You have a obligation to verify that the sources are valid and above board. 

 

I can tell that you've never written a thesis, dissertation or have ever been published in any journal. It involves a hell of a lot of hunting for sources. By this winter I'll have been published twice, both times I contributed a few paragraphs for each publication but those few paragraphs required nearly 45 articles to be hunted down and sourced. I had to go around online repositories, billing my lab upwards of a couple hundred dollars and article just to access them. I've had to request hardcopy only articles that date back to the 50s to be scanned and sent to me from the library. 

 

It doesn't matter that Wikipedia has some article on it. I need to go in and verify the existence of that information. Thats the point. Thats why profs get pissed when students only use wikipedia. You didn't research. You didn't verify. You took the easy way out and learned nothing. The goal is to get students to think critically and actually hunt the information down on their own. 

 

LOL @ Mainly because they know if it was embraced by experts in their fields, that wikipedia would/could eliminate the need for colleges

 

What do you think experts in respective fields think of wikipedia? They love it. Its a fantastic starting point for ANY research and general query. The idea is to actually take that starting point and delve deep into the details. Profs and experts would love for nothing more than a centralized location for articles and summaries and reviews. That doesn't exist. So wikipedia is the next best thing. Hell, my own thesis started from a wikipedia article that got me started down avenues and looking into articles. Thats the whole point. 

 

Wikipedia eliminating colleges. Ha. That's a good one. Colleges as a institution are as much about learning specialized knowledge (Wikipedia is not going to teach you how to do organic reactions in a lab say, as a chemical engineer) as they are about networking and forming connections with those like minded peers in your field.

 

If all you think of college is a place to get a degree and do mindless work, leave college and spare yourself the debt because you will NEVER get anywhere in life with that kind of attitude towards post-secondary institutes. 

 

 

School be like never copy or cite wikipedia; But if your sources and wikipedia's sources happen to be exactly the same, every time there's not really much we can do.

 

Amen. School wants you to actually read those articles and verify, they can't and won't give a shit if Wikipedia has the same information so long as you actually went through and validated its existence. Which is the whole point of all the papers you're given in undergrad. Learn how to read articles, learn how to collate information, learn how to verify information. 

[Toddwjp]

I think you missed the point of that rule entirely. 

 

Professors don't want students to become reliant on whats written on a wikipedia page. Professors want students to go and hunt down sources that are valid and peer reviewed. Professors actually encourage using what sources wikipedia articles use AFTER you've actually done what you're supposed to do and read those sources to verify the existence of what is being said. at that point, yea you can trust what Wikipedia has said FROM THAT ONE SOURCE. 

 

That doesn't give you carte blanche to just go around and think everything written is true. You have a obligation to verify that the sources are valid and above board. 

 

I can tell that you've never written a thesis, dissertation or have ever been published in any journal. It involves a hell of a lot of hunting for sources. By this winter I'll have been published twice, both times I contributed a few paragraphs for each publication but those few paragraphs required nearly 45 articles to be hunted down and sourced. I had to go around online repositories, billing my lab upwards of a couple hundred dollars and article just to access them. I've had to request hardcopy only articles that date back to the 50s to be scanned and sent to me from the library. 

 

It doesn't matter that Wikipedia has some article on it. I need to go in and verify the existence of that information. Thats the point. Thats why profs get pissed when students only use wikipedia. You didn't research. You didn't verify. You took the easy way out and learned nothing. The goal is to get students to think critically and actually hunt the information down on their own. 

 

LOL @ Mainly because they know if it was embraced by experts in their fields, that wikipedia would/could eliminate the need for colleges

 

What do you think experts in respective fields think of wikipedia? They love it. Its a fantastic starting point for ANY research and general query. The idea is to actually take that starting point and delve deep into the details. Profs and experts would love for nothing more than a centralized location for articles and summaries and reviews. That doesn't exist. So wikipedia is the next best thing. Hell, my own thesis started from a wikipedia article that got me started down avenues and looking into articles. Thats the whole point. 

 

Wikipedia eliminating colleges. Ha. That's a good one. Colleges as a institution are as much about learning specialized knowledge (Wikipedia is not going to teach you how to do organic reactions in a lab say, as a chemical engineer) as they are about networking and forming connections with those like minded peers in your field.

 

If all you think of college is a place to get a degree and do mindless work, leave college and spare yourself the debt because you will NEVER get anywhere in life with that kind of attitude towards post-secondary institutes. 

 

 

 

Amen. School wants you to actually read those articles and verify, they can't and won't give a shit if Wikipedia has the same information so long as you actually went through and validated its existence. Which is the whole point of all the papers you're given in undergrad. Learn how to read articles, learn how to collate information, learn how to verify information. 

 

only thing i fugging hate is when they give your an assignment to right a paper on stuff that doesnt require any research as they taught all the content you need during lectures but still want you to source it without using there lectures. (i know a lecture isnt a great source on its own but if they want us to practice sourcing then they could at least make it so we gain some knowledge from the sources at the same time)

[Kamina]

We were not allowed to us wikipedia during my study.. advanced plagiarism checking software will sniff you out

Bypass it and use an admin account.