Find solution
How do i source wikipedia in a bibliography?

Why is wikipedia such a bad source?

  • A lot of people, after realizing that anyone can edit (most) wikipedia articles, say that wikipedia is not a good source. But does wikipedia actually have much more false information ...show more

  • Answer:

    Wikipedia's issue is less one of accuracy as *consistency*. Because virtually anyone can edit it at virtually any time, there's always the potential that someone's inserted misinformation just before you view it, or that the particular article you're reading is not substantially developed. Judging quality in any substantial body of work is a difficult problem, but you're right to question the basis for the trust that traditional works are accorded. While professional editing does generally iron out errors, plenty more can wait in the wings. The classic example is of the 12-year-old who found several errors in Encyclopedia Britannica (< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece >). While that encyclopedia is generally of high quality, it's as insanely difficult to make non-probabilistic statements about errors in that publication as it is in Wikipedia. Yes, your odds are probably better with Britannica, but by how much? No one knows for sure, and the most significant comparison that's been done is mired in controversy (see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-03-27/Britannica >; the Wikipedia Signpost is Wikipedia's internal newspaper). Some Wikipedia articles are great, polished pieces; others can be incomplete or useless. There's no guarantee anywhere. That and a number of high-profile errors (or bits of vandalism) that have landed in the news, e.g. the Seigenthaler incident (< http://enwp.org/Wikipedia_biography_controversy >), give Wikipedia a bad reputation. If you know how to research properly, Wikipedia can be a great aid. The primary problem is when people assume that they can rely solely on it without cross-referencing or checking sources. It's a bad research practice to use *any* single source without question, and using tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) is generally frowned upon either way. See also an earlier answer of mine, at < http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100108221820AApE8e4 >, for my take on 'If Wikipedia is considered an "unreliable source", why do we still use it?'. I figure that that is a good extension to this answer, but for brevity I won't reproduce it here.

XR4QUXXH46E2ROXSUWGJMBEZOQ at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Of course published books can have false information, too. Yes, in theory, experts have the ability to correct false information. But if you're an expert who's tried to do that in the past and gotten called a "troll" or a "vandal" and had to argue your expertise with a 12-year-old, would you be inclined to do it again? Or what if you're an expert who's been slandered in Wikipedia articles? Wouldn't that sour you on Wikipedia? Even without such negative experiences, experts aren't willing to just give their expertise away for free. If you could get Stephen Hawking's knowledge from Wikipedia, why would anyone buy his book? Of the few experts who do contribute to Wikipedia, they are forced to contribute outside of their area of expertise, to topics they know as little about as the other editors working on them. With little help from experts, whatever content is copied from reliable published books is subject to a filter of half-understanding, or complete misunderstanding in some cases. It's true that Wikipedia tries to warn you about the unreliability of some of its articles. I've seen Answers here where the person answering refers to a Wikipedia article as if that settled the issue. Then you click on the link and the Wikipedia article has a big orange banner telling you the article doesn't quote any sources.

Bill

So a little boy found mistakes in Britannica. Any mistake Britannica makes should and does make the news. Even if it's just misplacing a Polish town no American has ever heard of before. What if Wikipedia made such a mistake? No news coverage, even if the mistake stood for a long time. For a mistake on Wikipedia to make the news, it would have to be serious slander of a mid-level celebrity. Between a source whose every mistake makes the news and a source that makes too many mistakes for the news to cover, I pick the former. Published books can have major blunders. I actually see it as a good thing that there is some kind of paper trail for mistakes. With Wikipedia, the wikiluminati can completely delete all evidence of their mistakes. Just ask Jimbo Wales about his birthday. A big part of the problem I have with Wikipedia is with all the people that just automatically assume that if it's on Wikipedia it must be true. Another problem is that it's hard to know where the biases are coming from. If I were to read in Rush Limbaugh's next book that SUVs have no impact whatsoever on the climate, then I understand where he's coming from. Read that same statement in Wikipedia and you can't be sure if "Anonymous220" really believes that or if he was just fiddling with the punctuation in the article to up his edit count.

Robert

Wikipedia is an excellent source. I would trust it with my life. Haters just want to hate. And Wikipedia shall rule forever and ever! Forever! And ever!

John

Wikipedia is said to be a bad source because you don't know who is at the other end, writing what you see. I trust Wikipedia, just like the good 43% of the Internet.

its bad because its basically peoples opinions

Michelle

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.