>hurr wikipedia is not a valid source
When will this meme stop?
Hurr wikipedia is not a valid source
Cameron Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
artnews.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Austin Lewis
well it's not really, it's a large mixture of indirect sources
the teachers that tell you not to use it are retarded, but you should never cite wikipedia; you have to make sure the statements you're citing have sources and then you can use those
Jacob Nelson
good question. people claiming this shit probably never use wikipedia themselves. I mean, it's a continuously changed/updated source of information, so it certainly does not serve as good reference for scientific work, but it's a damn good starting point for your research
Zachary Phillips
It's not for general information but speaking as an editor, you'd be surprised at how fucked up the site is from behind. Disputes in talk, fucked up categories and not to mention that 'facts' are a lot more nuanced than you think and incorporating them into an article with many different interpreters is not exactly easy.
Especially when say, a historian, general or scientist used a word in a qualified sense or people misinterpret a word/quote and you have to write a whole section as to the history of that misinterpretation or why the word/etymology of that word matters etc.
Jaxon Brooks
This guy gets it. I used to write articles (as opposed to "edit" and delete) and left in disgust. It simply is not wort the time.
Never read the articles without also
- read the history tab to see the edit war in all its gory
- read the talk tab to see the battles
Wikipedia simply does not scale.
Carson Ramirez
When the professor stops trying to shill their own shitty course materials
Ayden Fisher
en.wikipedia.org
>Neurotypical editors need to be aware that they're more likely to encounter autism-spectrum people here than they are in Real Life, and to know how best to work productively with them
Logan Morris
it's an unstable source of infos, but overall more than decent i would say, if you dont get into topics too controversial that are costantly corrected by nazis of opposed factions
Thomas Bell
Neurotypical anons need to be aware they're not welcome on Veeky Forums and fuck off back to facebook
Cameron Watson
Wikipedia itself isn't a viable source but the citations in relation to the article are extremely helpful. Wikipedia's problem is that there is no editorial point of view, so some articles that may seem objective could be purported on bias terms as we don't know the author or their intent for writing the article.
Cameron Morgan
That's because you're probably reading some retarded sociology articles that have been ruined with human emotion
Daniel Morris
It WAS reliable, but has become increasingly partisan and filled with lies thanks to on-going campaigns by SJW types to "correct" wiki articles that touch on their special victim status groups. Nowadays, I wouldn't even rely on it for basic facts, something it used to be excellent at. It's like TED, a once-reputable institution that has destroyed its own credibility thru foolish political grandstanding.
Connor Phillips
Thus it proves my point
Kevin Thompson
Good thing we still have Conservapedia to give us the straight dope.
Xavier White
Please provide one example of this
Angel Cruz
What does "valid source" even mean, here?
Landon Diaz
Different user, but a fair share of work on it is done with ulterior motives, e.g. some articles are improved, rewritten or started a anew in Feminist writeathons. Those are intended to help people who haven't done wikipedia editing with getting into it - for feminism, of course.
en.wikipedia.org
artnews.com
It really depends on what kind of information you are looking for. Even the fixation on citations or sufficient quoting differs. Some articles haven't been updated in years, sometimes the editing goes really sloppily. It's alright if you can judge the quality and bias in an article.
Asher Hernandez
The quality of wikipedia varies WIDELY by subjects
David Stewart
The only valid source for our news is our common sense, to distinguish between exaggeration, lie, bs, bare facts and the "full" facts.
Web sites and all businesses are only as honest, thorough and insightful as their ceo leaders, which is to say most are seriously lacking.
They lack honor: They report other rag mags for fake readership counts, but not their own "fake counts." Then they promise to clean up their "intentional view count lies," and people "believe."
They lack insight: They report only accidents and fatalities but they don't report that "one texting driver" and his/her children were killed by another "another texting driver."
They lack thoroughness because they're lazy, careless and inattentive.
Lucas Clark
I tried to use a Wikipedia article for research. Several articles I looked at had grammatical errors, major factual errors, and 90% of the citations were broken links. I've checked again later and they're not fixed. I forget what it was but the microeconomics page has a huge factual error which my professor pointed out.
Charles Nguyen
The "flail/morningstar" weapon, every medieval specialist know it's just a hollywood weapon, never existed in reality.
A competent specialist of the field edited the page with direct source proving it's a fictional weapon, his edit was removed, he tried to contact wikipedia, reedited with new accounts etc.. but his edits were always removed despite the official sources and all, he finally gave up. Then few years later a famous youtuber took notice of it and the massive uproar finally overcame the moderators opression.
If even the most mundane things like this are heavily censored by power hungry moderator, just imagine what it must be for subjects like GMO , global warming, syrian war etc ...
Lucas Evans
Gotta have some links for that story, mate.
Ian Powell
Zachary Cooper
It's good enough for educational purposes but a lot of the sources are insufficient for professional use. As a researcher I think it's 100% fine if you wiki up something that you know but don't know much about, educate yourself and then search for literature.
A lot of the minor topics are in fact written by people who are fairly specialized in the area. Usually a bored graduate student or young prof. It's about as good quality as word of mouth from your colleagues.
Carson Smith
Interesting.
For others - skip to 6:00
Juan Thompson
As someone who is into politics, no wikipedia is not a valid source. People are maliciously fucking with articles for political ends nonstop. People are getting hired to do nothing else all day but put slants on articles. And the list of accepted sources for articles is a joke, a ton of leftist shitrags on buzzfeed level of reporting are on it while basically everything right wing is forbidden.
Wyatt Hughes
The other day I found out that Barbara Spectre has a wikipedia page. Her sole claim to fame is being reposted on this site as a strawman by Nazi shills. SJWs are far from the only problem there.