Wikipedia: A credible source?

[Lullaby Chainer]

So right now, I’m in school completing a study guide for psychology. Every time I google a term there’s always a Wikipedia article as one of the first results filled with bundles of useful information. So I’m thinking, “Wow, wiki is really useful.” Then I started thinking about its use here on Volconvo. Many people here provide wiki as an informative source on a topic and the easiest way for an opponent to shoot down and ignore ALL of the information presented is to say, “anyone with a computer can edit Wikipedia. It’s not a credible source.”
Yet.. can’t the same be said about EVERYTHING online? Can’t any user in the world put up information about anything they want on the Internet? Yet.. the only time people think of this excuse is when it’s Wikipedia.

So, what are your views on Wikipedia? Is it a credible source? Can’t the arguments against it be said about almost anything on the Internet?

Edit: Do not mention my psychology report.. this is solely about Wikipedia and its role as a source in debate.

[ZNFYRH]

Wikipedia has become much better in the past year or so.

Since they were acquired, they have staff on hand whose job it is is to go and look at the recent edits to pages, as well as new pages, and check the references and their validity.

This is a good thing, as you will now see, more often, the disclaimer at the top stating that the information is one-sided, not objective, or has no good references.

The other thing to remember, when using Wiki, is that it is the same as Cliff's Notes.

If you have to write a report on Tom Sawyer, you might read the C.N. for an idea of what the story is about, but the reference in the C.N. would be the book itself.

Think of Wiki like a strong summary, and not an actual encyclopedia, and you will be much safer in your research.

Personally, I tell people to look at a Wiki article to better focus their search, and to use the reference material as their starting point.

[Chancellor]

Wikipedia is not a credible source (for the reasons ZNFYRH gave, as well as: just about anyone can edit it; the Wikipedia staff does not do a very good job of ensuring the articles are entirely unbiased; and Wikipedia articles do not always - or even usually - provide actual cites for their information) and certainly not valid for serious research. Since you're doing a study guide for psychology, maybe you should look to the American Psychological Association (and its counterpart organizations in other countries). Here's the link to their website: American Psychological Association.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Oh, no no.. don't think this is about my psychology study guide. I've already finished it.. and I'm not stressing about its correctness.

This is solely about Wikipedia and its role as a source in debate.

[HelioPrime]

Wickipedia has a large source of data.

It can contain quotes, or sections of books, or other things you'd have to spend time searching out or find in a real book.

It makes debate or reports easier because much of what is presented there is the same as in other sources.

If I'm quoting from a book I don't have why not use wiki.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So right now, I’m in school completing a study guide for psychology. Every time I google a term there’s always a Wikipedia article as one of the first results filled with bundles of useful information. So I’m thinking, “Wow, wiki is really useful.” Then I started thinking about its use here on Volconvo. Many people here provide wiki as an informative source on a topic and the easiest way for an opponent to shoot down and ignore ALL of the information presented is to say, “anyone with a computer can edit Wikipedia. It’s not a credible source.” Yet.. can’t the same be said about EVERYTHING online? Can’t any user in the world put up information about anything they want on the Internet? Yet.. the only time people think of this excuse is when it’s Wikipedia. So, what are your views on Wikipedia? Is it a credible source? Can’t the arguments against it be said about almost anything on the Internet? Edit: Do not mention my psychology report.. this is solely about Wikipedia and its role as a source in debate.

True, but have a pretty good quality proofing team! Also they require cites. If it sounds fishy check the cite. That tells a lot about the phrase!

[Muser]

Quote by: Chancellor Wikipedia is not a credible source (for the reasons ZNFYRH gave, as well as: just about anyone can edit it

I see that as a good thing - guards against the principle of "the victors writing the history books", as it were. The more collective knowledge from disparate masses, the better, IMO, provided substantive references and evidence are provided.

I think Wiki is an excellent informational starting point. I maintain, however, it should not be used as a sole, authoritative source, a principle which applies to anything and everything. Or certainly should. That being said, the referenced footnotes for further research are what lend Wiki a good deal of its credibility.

[Kevin Dean]

Any encyclopedia, even the printed ones, are only as good as the people who write it.

I think the question of Wikipedia's validity as a source changes dramatically depending on subject matter. In general, the more an issue matters to a community, the more accurate it is. For instance, the Free Software community, which I am a part of, gets pretty accurate representation. Similarly, the Wiki articles about well known celebs are often not only pretty accurate but insanely current.

Hotly contested issues also seem to be "accurate" in the sense that (for example abortion) both sides have a chance to "sanitize" it.

No single source should be deemed "credible" I think, credibility is built by making a blurb of information relevant and supported by other blurbs.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Muser I see that as a good thing - guards against the principle of "the victors writing the history books", as it were. The more collective knowledge from disparate masses, the better, IMO, provided substantive references and evidence are provided. I think Wiki is an excellent informational starting point. I maintain, however, it should not be used as a sole, authoritative source, a principle which applies to anything and everything. Or certainly should. That being said, the referenced footnotes for further research are what lend Wiki a good deal of its credibility.

I have found some Wiki articles that were well researched and spot on accurate. I have found more, however, that are suspect as containing erroneous information and/or being biased toward a particular point of view. The staff does try to monitor the posts and flags those that obviously need more work, but they have neither the manpower nor the expertise to catch all the stupid stuff and/or downright falsehoods mixed in with the good stuff.

I use Wiki consistently, however, as a good source for names, dates, key words, and subjects for additional research. I try not to use Wiki as an authoritative source for anything, however, unless I can back it up with at least one other credible source.

[brien]

Since the information in wiki is not usually verified by any independent credible sources, and can be eidted by anyone, I have to say that it isn't the best source to choose for reliable or accurate information.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: brien Since the information in wiki is not usually verified by any independent credible sources, and can be eidted by anyone, I have to say that it isn't the best source to choose for reliable or accurate information.

How is that much different than Mr. John Doe setting up a science website and providing information? Just about everything on the internet can be argued against with this line of reasoning.. you don't need any qualifications to post information on the internet.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer How is that much different than Mr. John Doe setting up a science website and providing information? Just about everything on the internet can be argued against with this line of reasoning.. you don't need any qualifications to post information on the internet.

Mr. John Doe would absolutely have no more credibility re anything posted on his website than does a Wikipedia article providing no authority for the information it presents.

However if John Doe has a PhD in the subject, affiliations with reputable Institution of Higher Learning or research group or whatever, has written peer reviewed papers, and there is no reason to think his credentials are bogus, I don't know of any decent professor who would not consider that an acceptable source.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer How is that much different than Mr. John Doe setting up a science website and providing information? Just about everything on the internet can be argued against with this line of reasoning.. you don't need any qualifications to post information on the internet.

No, there is a great deal of information on the internet that cannot be posted by just anyone, and that is properly cited, peer-reviewed material. Almost all scientific journals have websites, for example.

Furthermore, there is a large amount of material that comes straight from the source - for example, a Wikipedia article discussing how to fill out a tax form is inherently not as strong a source as the actual IRS instructions on how to fill out a tax form.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, there is a great deal of information on the internet that cannot be posted by just anyone, and that is properly cited, peer-reviewed material. Almost all scientific journals have websites, for example. Furthermore, there is a large amount of material that comes straight from the source - for example, a Wikipedia article discussing how to fill out a tax form is inherently not as strong a source as the actual IRS instructions on how to fill out a tax form.

That's not the only type of source Volconvo seems to take..

the only time this "anyone could edit it" bias comes in is when it's Wikipedia.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Oh, no no.. don't think this is about my psychology study guide. I've already finished it.. and I'm not stressing about its correctness. This is solely about Wikipedia and its role as a source in debate.

Then leaving out what I said about your psychology study guide:

Wikipedia is not a credible source (for the reasons ZNFYRH gave, as well as: just about anyone can edit it; the Wikipedia staff does not do a very good job of ensuring the articles are entirely unbiased; and Wikipedia articles do not always - or even usually - provide actual cites for their information) and certainly not valid for serious research.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Muser I see that as a good thing - guards against the principle of "the victors writing the history books", as it were. The more collective knowledge from disparate masses, the better, IMO, provided substantive references and evidence are provided.

But that's part of the problem, Wikipedia doesn't do a very good job in the area of substantive references and evidence.

I think Wiki is an excellent informational starting point. I maintain, however, it should not be used as a sole, authoritative source, a principle which applies to anything and everything. Or certainly should. That being said, the referenced footnotes for further research are what lend Wiki a good deal of its credibility.

If you consider "external links" to be "referenced footnotes," I can see where you might find Wiki to be credible but I haven't seen much in the way of actual "referenced footnotes" in articles I've read in terms of the footnotes providing bibliographical sources for the information in the articles.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor But that's part of the problem, Wikipedia doesn't do a very good job in the area of substantive references and evidence. If you consider "external links" to be "referenced footnotes," I can see where you might find Wiki to be credible but I haven't seen much in the way of actual "referenced footnotes" in articles I've read in terms of the footnotes providing bibliographical sources for the information in the articles.

I see plenty of footnotes and link to points used. Wiki LSD, or Jesus, or any thing and you'll find plenty of links to articles, PDF's, etc. If wiki uses direct findings from a study then its just as good a source as using the study directly.

Wiki combines a collection of information but it is of course biased by whoever writes it. Letting multiple people add in helps reduce bias. Books written by one author will be of course more biased.

Wiki's biggest plus I think is that everything is under one page. No searching everywhere and needing to be a member to view forums or online articles.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime I see plenty of footnotes and link to points used. Wiki LSD, or Jesus, or any thing and you'll find plenty of links to articles, PDF's, etc. If wiki uses direct findings from a study then its just as good a source as using the study directly. Wiki combines a collection of information but it is of course biased by whoever writes it. Letting multiple people add in helps reduce bias. Books written by one author will be of course more biased. Wiki's biggest plus I think is that everything is under one page. No searching everywhere and needing to be a member to view forums or online articles.

Merely providing links to other articles is not providing a bibliography showing where the information in the article came from. Using your example of Wikipedia using findings from a study, I would expect to see the cite for that study (and the source for where that study was found) in a footnote or bibliography at the bottom of the page and Wikipedia doesn't do a very good job of that.

[Cephus]

Wikipedia, in and of itself, is not a reputable source, but it is certainly a good place to get basic data and it may send you in the right direction to get credible sources. Because it can be theoretically edited by just about anyone whether they have any expertise or not, any knowledge or not, you cannot put your trust in the contents of any Wikipedia entry, they simply may be false and no one has caught the error yet.

But it's a good place to start regardless.

[tivodan1116]

Felon became COO of Wikipedia foundation - Yahoo! News

Not exactly on point, but certainly relates to the overall reputation of the wikipedia world.