Is Wikipedia a valid source?

[lillygator]

I just started my master's and the big no no is using wikipedia as a source.....my question is, is it valid? anyone can update it right?

 

[rie'smom]

A lot of the information is correct but it's submitted by people like you and me and not by experts. Therefore, a lot of programs don't accept it. In fact, my daughter's 8th grade teachers wouldn't accept it as a source last year.

 

[N.Bailey]

For the most part, I have found that it's a fairly reliable source, but since it can be edited by anyone, there is no guarantee that the information is 100% true.

The site is a great resource though and many of the articles back up the information at the very end of each subject. You can use those sources for a lot of information.

 

[Tamarap]

I am a high school English teacher and will not accept Wikipedia as a source. I do tell my students they may use it as a jumping off point for gathering information.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I will echo what others have said. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but it is not written by experts therefore it is considered unreliable.

I will give you a good example: I run a fansite for a book series known as "Tunnels". I have been in communication with the authors themselves, and through emails and their website learned that there was quite a bit of misinformation in the Wikipedia article about them. I had to go in and correct it.

At the end of every article there is a references section, everything is supposed to have a reference. You will see a notice on articles that do not have references to back up their claims. Any references take from websites will contain a link, which will take you the primary source.

I don't know about your program, but in my Master's program the gold standard for a research reference is an article published in a peer reviewed journal within the last seven years. We can get away with older articles depending on the topic, but it needs to be a professional peer reviewed publication. I'm assuming most Master's programs are very similar.

What is your Master's in?

 

[pr surfer]

My masters program refuses to accept wikipedia for cites, so we do the reference workaround. We find out what was cited in the wikipedia entry, then use and cite the source instead.

 

[pogo791]

For the most part, I have found that it's a fairly reliable source, but since it can be edited by anyone, there is no guarantee that the information is 100% true.

The site is a great resource though and many of the articles back up the information at the very end of each subject. You can use those sources for a lot of information.

Agreed. And in addition to the risk that the information is not 100% accurate, many articles are written to reflect the contributor's own interests, and do not necessarily cover all the relevant aspects.

I do a lot of research, and use Wikipedia quite often as a jump-off point. It's a great source for pointing you in a number of directions - but you always have to take the articles with a grain of salt. Sometimes, two.

 

[bicker]

Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is an encyclopedia. If you'll note, every article is supposed to have citations for each important fact they include that is likely to be challenged. What you can do is use Wikipedia to find such sources, and then use (and cite) those sources.

 

[Aliceacc]

The high school in which I teach will not accept Wikipedia. Nor will the educational website for whom I do freelance writing.

As others have mentioned, it's a good place to go to get a feel for your topic. You'll pick up key phrases you can google, as well as an overview for your topic.

So it's a decent starting place, but most certainly NOT acceptable as a source for someone in a Master's program.

 

[Robinrs]

It wasn't until it announced that Sinbad was DEAD that I foiund out it could be edited by anyone! Sinbad announced that when he was on the radio letting everyone know he was NOT dead!

Since then I warned my son from quoting ANYTHING on Wikipedia. It's good for basic stuff but not for written assignments.

 

[Todd&Copper]

I would think that Wikipedia, as a secondary source, wouldn't be appropriate research material for a Master's thesis. Maybe an elementary school report, but not a Master's. I'd consult the primary sources cited by the contributers to the particular Wiki pages you are looking at. Besides, the contributers may be misinterpreting the information found in the primary sources, and you wouldn't want to be caught holding the bag if that is the case, right?

 

[Ephany]

Not at my university. Most professors even had it in their syllabus emphasized in bold that it was not a valid primary source. I've used it a couple of times as a starting point, but that's it. I don't think it's as easy to edit as it used to be, I believe you have to register in order to post now, but I could be wrong.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

No. I'd think it would be OK for some topics like the history of strawberries or something like that. Any topic that is controversial or had well known figures that were I could see becoming heated.

I know of one situation where a friend of a friend got into a war on Wikipedia with some buisness competition. There were people editing numerous entries all over Wikipedia for months.

 

[Northstar]

Even if it wasn't for the anyone-can-edit thing, I don't think you could cite Wikipedia or any encyclopedia in a graduate-level research paper.

Even if the information is reliable, it's still just a starting point for real research. That's what encyclopedias are meant for... giving an overview.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I am a high school English teacher and will not accept Wikipedia as a source. I do tell my students they may use it as a jumping off point for gathering information.

This is how I view Wikipedia as well. Most of the articles will have some kind of source for the information, so it can be a great starting point.

 

[WhateverLolaWants]

I'm echoing the no's. I was not allowed to cite it as a source in college since any person can write something in an article, but you can look into the sources that are cited in the Wikipedia article.

 

[Anewman]

I tell my kids to use Wikipedia, but then fact check any info b4 using it in their homework.

And then cite the source that confirms said facts, never wikipedia.

 

[MrsPete]

I am a high school English teacher and will not accept Wikipedia as a source. I do tell my students they may use it as a jumping off point for gathering information.

I'm also a high school teacher, and we say the same thing; however, some of my students have a hard time getting their brains around the idea of using it as a way to get started . . . so I discourage it altogether.

A little more info: "Wiki" means fast in Hawaiian, and any document that has "wiki" in its name means it can be edited by multiple users. If you ran a company, for example, you might have a wiki-page for a project -- say a new advertising campaign -- that you were putting together with multiple co-workers. You could start the page with your idea to hold the advertising campaign around a certain holiday. Co-worker one could come along, read your idea, then suggest a certain color-scheme and slogan. Another co-worker could come along and suggest that you give discounts on certain items and send out post cards to your previous customers. Yet another co-worker might come along and point out that you've not had good returns on previous postcard mailings, and he might suggest radio ads. You could come back to the page, see their suggestions, adjust the slogan slightly, and add that you're going to stay open extra hours for the sale. The beauty of the system is that the pages are always accessible to anyone (anyone who has the password), and it's a great way for you all to coordinate without physically getting together to plan. Unlike email, you don't have multiple versions out there, so everyone's always "on the same page".

Wiki stuff is really cool, but it's good for small group coordination. Wikipedia has "too many cooks in the kitchen" to be valid. If you need to verify the capital of South Dakota quickly, it's fast and easy. If you want to know anything in detail, it's a questionable source. And it's not considered a scholarly source.