Even though Wikipedia is my personal favourite source of information, the articles available on it are not always written by experts. Even when they are, anyone can still modify them. I know a few people who modified the articles for pranking their friends. (They did get caught in a while and were blocked by Wikipedia.) Assuming that all articles are written by experts and have not been tampered with, the articles still have not gone through a rigorous peer review. Therefore even though it can be used as a quick source of information, it can never stand out as an authentic and credible scientific information website.

There are two purposes of the provision of citation in research work:

a) avoiding plagiarism and

b) providing suitable authenticity to a declaration.

Wikipedia descriptions are sources of information but they fall in the category of website information with no author and no publication date. Such source is never considered a preferred type to be cited. Various journals and instructors can suggest slight variations in the preferred citation source, but original research articles are the most favorite to all of them. Review Articles and Books are also desired but only a few. Some editors may suggest maximum of 2-3 Books/Book Chapters and 3-4 Review Articles. The case reports often are discouraged. Newspaper articles and Website information with author and date of publication are very much discouraged in any article to be published in good journal. The website information with no author and no publication date is most poor source of all above types described. Therefore, such source must be used to know the basics of some term and to help in searching related authenticated information in the form of original research articles etc., but should not be cited in the articles to be published in good journals.

Even though Wikipedia is my personal favourite source of information, the articles available on it are not always written by experts. Even when they are, anyone can still modify them. I know a few people who modified the articles for pranking their friends. (They did get caught in a while and were blocked by Wikipedia.) Assuming that all articles are written by experts and have not been tampered with, the articles still have not gone through a rigorous peer review. Therefore even though it can be used as a quick source of information, it can never stand out as an authentic and credible scientific information website.

Ya!! The main hindrance for a researcher in sighting wikipedia is that often the content is not authentic, there is always a risk of plagiarism. Although its a good tool for the general research and information but it should be avoided when you are preparing a quality research article.

As mentioned by others here, the content on Wikipedia is not authentic and has not been peer reviewed by the experts.

I agree with everybody, Wikipedia is a good first approach resource, but can't be the only resource. Is important to verify al the wikipedia data in the original source and this one, the original, must be the one to cite.

In addition to the issue of authorship (i.e., that Wikipedia articles can be written by anyone), and the lack of peer review (which have been described by several other respondents already), there is also the issue that Wikipedia articles are constantly changing. When you cite a particular page, there is no guarantee that the page will even exist in its current form in a year when someone else reads your paper. Wikipedia does keep a history of revisions, so you could theoretically find the old version that was cited on a given day, but that is not a useful system. By contrast, a published primary article stays keeps the same content forever and should be available forever (assuming it's not retracted). The citation therefore links to the right content whenever someone happens to look it up.

Wikipedia authors do no research. Therefore plagiarism is not possible. Wikipedia pages are usually a collection of information from different sources. So you should use them directly, if possible.

There are lots of things dealing with new things or topics nobody else is interested in. The layers of foil in a pizza box as an example. Then citing Wikipedia is a great idea. It is free and the content will never change. Make sure to link a revision number and not just the page name.

Or, if only one small information is in your focus, you can even link to the edit in which this content was added. Then you have the exact author and date.

When Wikipedia was first implemented and introduced to academics we were also guided by our schools about verification and validation as Wikipedia is not peer reviewed or for that matter audited and evaluated by a standard or regulating body. Even now, if someone refers to it, including myself, a reference can be checked for or sought information upon, but in my school and many others we do not guide or suggest our students towards using it. We still discourage use of it due to authentication.

Because Wikipedia is not a primary source. Any information that's worthy of being cited on Wikipedia will have cited another source; go there instead.

I think the answer you'll get here will be a consensus one as everyone so far is in agreement. However, i wold like to add something that might be beneficial. Most of the time, well written/ high quality Wikipedia articles cite academic journals so what you could do is to look for the reference within the wiki article.

Here's what i mean. Take the following statement:

Advanced oxidation processes (abbreviation: AOPs), in a broad sense, refers to a set of chemical treatment procedures designed to remove organic (and sometimes inorganic) materials in water and waste water by oxidation through reactions with hydroxyl radicals (·OH)[1]

You will notice the [1] that signifies a citation hence rather than cite Wikipedia as the source of this statement, look for the actual reference at the end of the document. That reference will most likely be something you can cite without worries although i will advice that you read the actual article before citing.

Hope this helps

I think that a lot of the Wikipaedia articles are reviewed by people who are authorities - and as laypersons they may also be experts - on their subjects. That is not the problem. The problem is that people who do not know enough about certain subjects nevertheless sometimes change the facts. I know of a museum on Wikipedia that was subject to this kind of editing. Every time the information was corrected, the same person would appear and reintroduce the same mistakes.

In the social sciences the situation is far less clear cut because we are all influenced by our social backgrounds, the countries we live in, the prevailing political climate, etc. And all these things will inevitably affect the way we write, the subject matter we choose, etc. But we can strive to be honest in our use of information and to see that anything we write is logically consistent.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we usually don't quote them here (in germany in history), because they aren't scientific literature. But that's true for Wikipedia as well as any other encyclopedia.

Still I'm encouraging my students to use Wikipedia. If they use content from Wikipedia, they have to cite it or it's plagiarism. That being said, I only encourage them to use Wikipedia as a entry point for their own research. Wikipedia often has a good amount sources listed which should be used for deeper research. This sources are more up to date than in any printed book. Furthermore I know encyclopedias which have errors in their articles and those errors will be there for years. Wikipedia has errors too, but at least they're correct more regularly.

Citing wikipedia is a big "NO". However, sometime in Wikipedia, people give citations at the end of a wikipedia page, you can traverse them and find proper citations.

Given the fact that it is possible to check the information on Wikipedia against other sources I see no problem. I have discovered enough misleading information and even lies in journals and other publications to which "reputable" scholars contribute. I would personally trust a lot of Wikipedia articles more than I would certain academic publications.

imho, Wiki has the same defect as all electronic publications:

you can't be sure about existing of citation or about it's correctness;

paper variant is more steady, but not absolutely sufficient - too;

This question is easily resolved. At the end of many Wikipedia articles is a bibliography of cited sources. Use them. If there are few references or if they are not from respected and reviewed publications, the article could be an uninformed opinion. On the other hand, if the article is wee-referenced, the availability of citations from trusted sources gives a fact check on the article contents as well as references that can be cited in your work. Bottom line: OK to start with Wikipedia, but not to end there.

You can and should use wikipedia, and you can even quote it. But as any piece of academic information, you should always cross check it with other sources, and preferable quote from where comes the original information if possible, seeing that wikipedia is a enciclopedia and not an academic work. About the professors not letting you quote wiki, its because the so called humanities 2.0 is still a growing trend in the academic world and a lot of the professionals in it right now arent yet in that new trend format. Its a question of habit and evolution. No one likes change.

In "the good old days", we would start a paper giving a general background in the first sentence or two. To avoid having to explain basic terms "that everybody should have known", we would have a reference to a dictionary and encyclopedia entry to quickly get the paper going, without getting bogged down. To me it makes sense today to legitimise early references to Wikipedia.

We would also use a key paper to give us a hint as to the literature. Today we can use the references at the end of a Wikipedia article to get our reading list seeded and going fast.

I have no problem with my students citing wikipedia as long as they do not customize the content without attribution. I concur with Benson that as long as it is possible to check information against other sources then it is just like using a book, a journal article or even a newspaper article.

I´m against to use directly like a good scientific support,We can use their consistent references, checked in otehr research sources.For me , no.

While I am absolutely rigourous - also to my students - about not quoting Wikipedia as a source of secondary information (dates, names, facts to supply background information about what I am writing), I nevertheless do encourage them a) to look for potentially interesting literature, as many above already wrote, and b) to use it as a primary source for 21st century popular knowledge, discourses and imaginations. For example, when I wrote about subjectivity and identity in Heavy Metal music, I quoted Wikipedia to instantiate that Motörhead are widely regarded in popular perception as a Heavy Metal band, though they themselves categorically deny that. In this case, I used the respective articles in the German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and English Wikipedia version as support for my claim. And, last but not least, it may be that, for good or bad, for certain topics Wikipedia is all you get - I am currently doing some research about how Early Modern History is depicted in video games, and there is not as much scientific work on that topic as I sometimes would need. So for some games I use Wikipedia as additional background information source, together with fan pages, forums and so on, as there just is nothing else there. When sometime (hopefully soon) the topic is worked on better, this will not be necessary anymore. When it comes down to names, dates, facts, the answer is however NO, as I said before - I once gave a course on Machiavelli years ago, and as I habitually check what Wikipedia says about the topics my students have to work on (just in case), in the German and French version there were different life dates. I do not know if that is still the case, but I took it as a warning. In the end, it comes down to the basic rules of all science: If you are cautious, know the dangers, stick to the rules and make your working process transparent, it may work out; just consider beforehand if it‘s worth the effort.

Students like easy access and "good" information. Academics prefer their own-controlled journals with high budget. One can reach Wiki from anywhere. You have more difficulty and more expenses to read and cite a paper based journal or its electronic variant.

One can remember the possibility of correctting: as yoe may read on the main page: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Persons, professors may correct the items, if they are false. Why not?

I use Wikipedia as initial reference to overall understanding of phenomenon, but I find that for me there are two issues of special importance for not quoting: 1. I do not know the author and source of writing and images and photographs 2. The veracity of the writing is not secure.

Great thanks to all contributors for sincere comments.

I just want to indicate that the banishment mentioned in my initial question is confirmed by wikipedia in its citing service: “citing [it] as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade.”

Dear Mouzoune, my opinion is not to use it. Specially, if the students and professors wants to be unique. Albeit some people around the academic globe likes to use it.

For some of us who are working in new digital terrain, Wikipedia is often our only source for cohesive definitions and background. I sometimes cite Wikipedia articles in my publications but it is with a very distinct purpose. For example, in the early days of my blogging research we had no comprehensive academic publication for a definition of "blog." So I cited Wikipedia. In doing so I archived the specific page I was citing...and included date and time in my citation. I also knew that once I had a solid workable academic publication with a comprehensive definition I would, and did, switch to that definition. For me Wikipedia is a tool...it is often a tool to be used when no other tools exist...but it is not a tool to be used without careful thought and justification.

Fact finding is one thing, finding evidence as a basis for research is quite another. Wikipedia is not what you base research arguments on.

Wikipedia can be a good starting point, for spelling or for terms / synonyms. The used bibliography can then be a good reference for deeper research. Images that are public domain come often to be handy. Wikipedia is incomplete. Editors are overzealous and try to keep monopoly. Only certain references are allowed and that is very wrong very limiting. Usually they accept ISI papers or books from reputable (in their opinion) publishers. Very valuable information is often attempted to be published but editors keep it away, deleted for "n" invoked reasons, most of the times unjustified. Wikipedia is a starting point for orientation but it lacks credibility due to arrogant attitude taken by many of the builders.

I think one of the reasons is its credibility. Which are the sources of Wikipedia? That is the question. This link is written in Spanish but the graphics are in English. It may help to understand the problem: http://www.ticbeat.com/tecnologias/fuentes-wikipedia-infografia/

Like Adrian said, I use Wikipedia as a starting point; grasp an initial understanding of some terms, etc. and then continue my search throughout libraries on and off campus. I also discourage my students from citing Wikipedia unless they cannot find any other sources (as in Tobias' case with Motörhead and depictions of history in video games)

Wikipedia is a good outreach system, but it is no a formal scientific media. Wikipedia lacks from the most important control quality process: the peer review. Peer review is the best manner for maintaining of quality and rigor in scientific publishing. Thus, Wikipedia can be subject to many significant errors. Science progresses on rigorous processes. I would recommend Wikipedia as guiding tool for general knowledgement, but never as a formal scientific resource.

It all depends also on the importance of the research. Fine tuning research can't include Wikipedia. I often found some information on Wikipedia to be misleading. I attempted to correct using the proper avenues and I was accused for serving interests of people or groups. Lots of work I put into updating the Wikipedia but after a few days or weeks, all information was deleted. It is like a group of people that want to be the only one to convey information but like I said, some information is wrong or often incomplete. Please Google search, as an example, the term "ICISS" (Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation). You may see some pictures as proof of the phenomena and methodology but the Wikipedia did not allow the info that actually was offered for free to serve the scientific community. The ICISS was published in a Scientific Bulletin of and presented at a International Conference at a major University (USAMV Cluj-Napoca, Romania) recognized worldwide but they label it as "not a trusted source". The same with the term Application of TEKT (Triangular Eco-Kinematics Theory) that was a major subject in 2011 at a international Conference in Moscow under the Academy of Science. No TEKT in the Wikipedia as of yet. Some information is also wrong but if you attempt to correct it, the corrections are deleted within a short time. It is a total waste of time to attempt to improve Wikipedia.

Andrian: “It is a total waste of time to attempt to improve Wikipedia.”

I was thinking of “anyone can correct mistakes” as a counterargument to the standard “Wikipedia is not reliable because anyone can edit” when I discovered Andrian’s case: It seems that not “anyone” can contribute due to a kind of “conflict of power”!

Maybe WP is more a victim of its own creators than of its users since the time Wikipedia Founder was reported to discourages academic use of his own creation! (http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305 )

Nevertheless and while following with great interest the current insightful discussion, I’d like to share this positive opinion: “Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto said he now regards Wikipedia as more accurate than printed textbooks and far less costly for both students and educators.” (http://www.ericsson.com/nestforum/hong-kong-2011/growing-demand/textbook-dead-190 )

So Andrian, may I ask you not to give up!

Simply because wikipedia is not an authentic source (everyone can edit) and not peer reviewed one.

Wikipidia is certainly reservoir of information on any subject. However there is no authenticity for the material. For authenticity the information has to be from a peer reviewed journal. The lack of authenticity and unsuitability for citation does not belittle the importance of Wikipedia as one can look for any information in it.

For transparency sake if Wikipedia is a source of your text it should be cited! Why not? For those who do not want it to cite it (?) they should get their source elsewhere (:-)

I do not advice wikipedia for citation but no doubt it helps to understand the topic For citation authentic ref are a must

Lakshmi Sarma, I agree with you. Any research should observe different sources as much as possible and publications that are not so 'reputable" should be considered as well for the simple reason that behind reputation are "FINANCIAL INTERESTS". There are plenty of underfunded research that do not have the money to publish in expensive magazines. As an other related comment: You spend money and time on research and then spend money to GIVE the INFO to others. Other benefit and use the info for financial gain. There are many publications that are not ISI and are extremely valuable. A good researcher should not limit to websites of ANY-KIND, and not to ISI publications. Should consider ALL OPTIONS and SOURCES. ALL should be questioned and challenged.

Dear Abdessamad Mouzoune ,

no, I will not give up! It may be a waste of time but at least I learn about ... "human behavior" and conflict of powers. At one point I may witness the opposite. If I stay away I learn nothing. Remember: Ignorance kills. So, I am for going ahead and not let it die, as the time will allow me ;-). As a researcher I do not give up easy on anything, believe me ;-).

Regards,

Adrian Toader-Williams

I do not understand much of the opposition to Wikipedia here. My experience has been that many of the articles are excellent both in form and content. Compare, for example, the nonsense that Encyclopedia Britannica writes about the colonization of Australia and the treatment of the convict labourers (basically barely different to the treatment of people in concentration camps in the 20th century) and the article in Wikipedia, which is far more accurate, as any reading of the source material (as cited, for instance, by Robert Hughes in "The Fatal Shore".

We cannot afford to ignore Wikipedia. It is an excellent source of information, and this information can be checked against other sources.

Before Wikipedia, professors would discourage any student from relying on any encyclopedia as their source as it is a secondary source and students should be encouraged to use more primary sources. Developing an independent perspective based on your own reading of primary sources is a wonderful learning experience that tends to foster more independent thinking and more innovative perspectives on any body of work. A side benefit of Wikipedia has been its use to begin a process of discovering relevant primary sources, which should be positive, if these sources are read critically.

I agree entirely. Over the past fifty years or so there have been so many historians and other social scientists who have researched source material that would have never seen the light of day otherwise: accounts by people from all walks of life - from Kings and Queens to tailors, car workers, office employees, the unemployed, etc. - telling of their experiences, describing their work, uprisings, gatherings, the outbreak of wars, new developments of all kinds...

Critically Evaluate and Select the Literature: The key point here is determining if a source is a good source and whether it is relevant to your particular research. Is it a Good, Accurate Source? Rely as much as possible on journal articles published in national journals. Use a priority system for searching the literature. Start with refereed journal, then proceed to non-refereed journal articles; then books; then conference papers, dissertations, and theses; and finally non-review of materials from a high level of review to minimal or no review. I should think that even if Wikipedia would be a source of reference, it should be among the last sources to be used in any citations/references.

I believe wikipedia can be a source of knowledge, but it should be a source of general knowledge...but students should cite works from other researchers so it gives more credibility to their report and give their own opinions on matters at hand.

Wikipedia may be used as a tertiary source of information, not for credible, informed and scholarly work. If your intention is to use established body of knowledge, then one should look for authentic sources. Example: .gov

Good question. I use Wikipedia and i recommend my students using-it, but only as a fast, basic overview before starting the real research on a topic, and, as help for understanding English language articles, when dictionaries are not enough to understand the concepts and terms. It's not a accurate scientific source, but a free available source for some basic knowledge.

I think wikipedia can work as the first source of information on a new topic in order to get a general overview. But, since Wikipedia is not written by experts, it should be used as "a brief guideline" into a new topic. I never use it in citations nor do I recommend students to use it in their materials.

Why do you assume that the articles in Wikipedia are not written by experts?

I do not assume this, and I know that some of them are, but since there is proof of it being written by experts (meaning the lack of references), I consider it as an "open forum".

I totally agree with Lazarus Ndiku Makewa. The guide should be critical evaluation of all sources. You should also discriminate primary evidence from secondary evidence. I consider Wikipedia a secondary source. Some articles could be used as stimulators for further search, but not as primary evidence in research. i don't recommend students to use it as a primary resource.

Sorry, but how else do I understand: "since Wikipedia is not written by experts..."?

If we talk generally about Wikipedia as a source, it's hard to accept that all articles posted there are of great quality. Some are, some are even better than really high rated journal articles, but, it's not a general standard. As professor, i could check myself the articles i recommend, and admit or not their quality, recommend them or not. When it comes to publishing, writing papers, it's a personal choice to use-it or not, however, most reviewers i met do not take seriously Wikipedia as a accurate source.

Wikipedia can provide misleading information. I strongly discourage my students to use it. I have also found out that serious broadcasting networks use Wikipedia as their only source to inform people in the world about the level of education in the world. This is regrettable.

Well, it is always good to know what has previously published, but in my view, it gives easily access to basic information for who wants to start research activites. On the other hand, for professional and advanced research, other sources are recommended to aviod any missleading data.

Dear all,

Not a summary, just a way to thank all contributors for such a transparent discussion, here I’m roughly clustering different opinions. (I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding)

* 1% “Don’t use it at all”: Wikipedia can provide misleading information.

* 92% “Use it but don’t cite it”: The use is restricted to preliminary stages of a research and just as a secondary source of information. Wikipedia is but an encyclopedia or a tool.

* 7% “If used then cite it”: Based on a fair use principle, Wikipedia is a source of information subject to critics as do other sources.

Thanks to all,

A. Mouzoune

Thank you Abdessamad.

The 92% should "Read it, but not write it". Are the radio stations reading from it guilty of plagiarism? Ministers using it for their sermons? Lecturers preparing lecture slides? School children doing "projects"?

The use of Wikipedia is and continues to be one of concern for historians. For factual knowledge it is a very reliable source while further explanations in a historical context have to be reviewed carefully. As everyone can change them, it is easy to portray history from certain background while neglecting other aspects. Yes, there are 'community standards' but it is not a given that this community is always of aware of different aspects of certain historical events.

Example: An Armenian scholar is working on the history of its people. A Turkish historian might not agree with his version of events of the year 1915 and thus alters it and deletes the parts that are critical of his own country. Students researching this topic would be left with one version of this atrocity. It is historical misrepresentation par excellence.

I usually give tips for using Wikipedia to my students. They are allowed to read Wikipedia as bibliography to enhance their knowledge but if they need to cite information inside it they need to look for the references usually put on the end of the article on Wikipedia. The students need to read the original sources that referenced by the article

A lot of Wikipedia articles contain very valuable and detailed references for further reading.

I think your approach is very wise, Imami Rachmawati.

And I agree with you entirely, Edson Moschim, that atrocities such as the massacre of Armenian's must not be deleted. But that cannot be a reason to tell students not to read Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to introduce some system whereby different versions of events can be published alongside one another. That might help people with opposing views to understand one another better. (Groups of Protestants and Catholics met -at some risk to their lives - in Northern Ireland during the long civil war to overcome their differences. They were part of the peace process.)

We all have to learn to discern between truth and propaganda. And it is a struggle that never ends.

@Imami @Robin: Agree, using Wikipedia as a source for references is certainly to encourage.

Robin Benson ,

Life is a struggle AND a learning opportunity for the open minds. Propaganda is a dangerous toy sometimes. Some of it contains truth some ... interest serving lies or exaggerations. I fully agree with your statements and example.

regards,

Adrian Toader-Williams

Dr Kennedy: "Read it, but not write it"

It seems you’re right: Convinced that all contributions of the current thread insisted (explicitly or implicitly) in the necessity of a kind of critical thinking while using sources like Wikipedia, I started another thread about extending the critical thinking to the whole process of academic writing in: https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Academic_Writing/post/Critical_Thinking_and_Academic_Writing .

In the initial question of that thread, I quoted Wikipedia without citing it and the first reply to include “There is no reference concerning where the information came from - was it stolen from someone else?” and the question was voted down!

The availability of huge volume of information on Wikipedia should be of major interest for senior researchers (as stated by Edson Moschim in above discussion). The researchers need to look for the original sources referenced by the article on Wikipedia i.e., the references usually put on the end of the article on Wikipedia (as emphasized by Imami Rachmawati, above). Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is need of peoples from various fields. However, the information on Wikipedia is not arranged by some expert and is mostly anonymous. The references put at the end are not sufficient to know the original source, unless we open the corresponding source and read it ourselves. Therefore, it remains worthwhile to suggest that the researchers can find it easy to find some useful information relevant to their study, but they need to cite the original sources. Citing Wikipedia itself is risky in many ways such as listed below:

1) Its content can change with time

2) Its contents have not undergone peer review by any expert(s).

3) The information on Wikipedia is mostly anonymous or searching the original source is necessary.

The first problem: "the content can change with time" is a problem that will always be with us. We must learn to live with that.

I am not so worried whether contents are verified by experts or laypeople. To me it is only important that they are attempting to establish the truth: and that means facts on the one hand and logical coherence/consistency on the other. We should never underestimate the validity of information supplied by people with no academic background, or who cannot read or write, etc.

I do not accept the assumption that - in the world of social sciences in particular - the experts necessarily know more than the laypeople.

Much of the information on Wikpedia is backed up by sources.

- What is the difference between the sources supplied with Wikipedia articles and those supplied by professors, for example?

I see no fundamental difference.

(Except for the fact that professors have more time to check sources. Whether they produce good material is another issue. The US university/college system is notorious for producing low quality instructors.)

Everything that makes learning entertaining, exciting, helps people develop their intellectual capacities and make the world a better place to live in is good. And to me, that should be the prime goal of the social sciences.

The question is: What qualifies a person as an expert? There are experts who are considered such owing to their experience and knowledge, and there are experts who are such merely because they have good connections, perhaps a title too, but nevertheless act as if they have the expertise expected of them in their chosen field. (Politicians are probably the most notorious examples of this, but they are not the only ones by far.)

I qualified my statement with the word "necessarily", as I do not want to be misunderstood as opposing experts in general.

I stand by my bold statement.

Dear Henk Smid , dear Robin Benson, I agree with both of you. Great conversation, enlightening to many.

As I always tell my students "Wikipedia, CANNOT be cited as a source". But you can always cite the sources inside wikipedia.

Could you explain your reasons?

I just have finished my Magister thesis. I have a lot of wikipedia citations. The main reason about that is most of the times books that are sources of wikipedia are very difficult to acquire. And the other one: some videos, images and photos are stored at wikipedia in the same articles, so is very useful to cite there. And the last reason: I have found that at least two or three very important facts for my research are well documented in Wikipedia, maybe better than in physical books, and much more updated.

My thesis director was averse to those kind of citations. At last, he found that there were very useful and trustable information at Wikipedia, and quality of information was the same, or better, than traditional books (that were sources of Wikipedia articles).

Next week I expect that the first peer review about my tesis will pass this obstacle, maybe not.

Well, this far at least I can only say: A blow for freedom.

@ Robin,

The reason is that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. It changes the whole day. Different editors, or better said teams of editors with different agendas, fight continuously about it. On the other hand, wikipedia demands sources for almost each sentence you write. Therefore you can see sources. These sources are citable, But you need often your own interpretation. As I said before the Wikipedia articles are often biased and the sources are interpreted, selected and cited, the way the editors (the biggest and mightiest) team of editors at that time want it.

I always start searching for a topic from wikipedia. It is the best site to start from because no matter what topic one is interested in, almost everything is there in wikipedia. But, when it comes to article quality, it differs from article to article. Some of them are very well written with proper citations (and are protected as well) whereas rest may not explain the concept well, let alone the citations. As mentioned in the earlier replies, website citations are generally not acceptable. What I do is that, I either track back to the source (if citations are available) or I go for original research papers/ books once I understand the basics from wikipedia.

Wikipedia often cites books. Those books are usually (partially) available via google books. Never cite Wikipedia.

I think using wikipedia as an entry to a broad or new domain is a good trick but you have of course to crosscheck carefully the information. The best way is to get keywords or reference or authors, in fact any possible entry to search peer-reviewed articles, reviews or books. These latter would be the cited.

Surely what applies to Wikipedia must apply to other sources of information and literature too? Even then, we are often left to decide on the basis of a combination of logic and facts what is true and what is false.

@ Robin. Other sources are not publicly available for modification. The problem with wikipedia is that articles can get edited and (destroyed) by everyone. Different (teams of) editors fight about editing it. It is not reliable. Other sources may be unreliable too, but an additional problem of Wikipedia is that It is unstable.

@ Robin. Following Babak's sound comment. I fully agree. The scientific articles, reviews and books are peer-reviewed, editor-reviewed, copyright protected and erratum/addendum can be safely made by authors. Moreover, metrics like H-index, impact factor, etc... may give a flavor on their relevance . All these reasons make that research-wise works references this kind of publications and not what is open and freely modified (wikipedia and other network resources). In addition,patents and to some extent databases are other sources of trustful and verified knowledge one can cite.

Mukeshchand Thakur,

I agree with your point of view.

I see that you all agree that wikipedia is useful, and fact you use it as a tool for initial exploration of a topic, but agree that it should not be cited. Why not? Is this fair and honest? Relying on wikipedia but denying its usefulness? Of course I would never say to rely only on wikipedia, but I have no prejudice against it, and I cite it as an interesting indicator of how a term or scientific concept becomes commonsense.

I like Boaventura de Sousa Santos proposal that t science should become common sense. I don´t understand why a good journal should refuse a paper that cites wikipedia as a starting point followed by a good number of good peer reviewed research articles.

@Maria Eulina. I don't understand your point. It has nothing to do with fairness and honesty. It is simply research and scientific methodology. Until today (and for a long time I guess), research uses scientific communication and scientific communication is peer-reviewed, protected and evaluated by diverse indexes. I am sorry to say that anything else cannot be considered as scientific research. I believe the scientific community has to gain from stay pretty strict on that topic.

Ps. As already mentioned I found wikipedia as truly revolutionary and I use it on a daily basis but it is a additional tool that cannot replace scientific literature.

Wikipedia's contribution can never be underestimated. However, it is also important to keep in mind that wikipedia pages are not static and moreover they can be edited by anyone. This makes citing and solely on wikipedia difficult. In contrary, research papers are peer-reviewed which increases the authenticity and genuineness of the information.

Right, I am not talking about "replacing" scientific literature by wikipedia. But I value making explicit the process of knowledge production (how you go about constructing your own discourse in exploring a theme and the literature available about it.) We are only talking about a part of the work (literature review) and I have no prejucice in including wikipedia, newspaper and popular magazine articles in it, unless you decide to review only peer reviewed journal articles, which is fine. Of course it all depends on how you define your object of investigation (it may include common sense and popular media discourses), but I am against simplying forbiding wikipedia because it is not peer-reviewed. I do value peer review but do not think it is fail-safe. On the other hand, how scientific concepts are translated into common sense is an interesting issue, exactly because scientific knowledge should reach a larger audience, and wikipedia intends to do that. Basically, I find it curious that academics do resort to wikipedia but deny it! Sorry, but for me that's hypocrisy.

I agree with you entirely.

On my side I never denied wikipedia. I even teach my student to use it, but with caution because it is unverified and uncontrolled information and as such not scientific communication. Nobody will never forbid you to cite wikipedia or any website or any mainstream medium if it helps at exposing your scientific approach but in my opinion one should not consider this as scientific references, because actually it is not stricto sensu. Let's say that my first action when reviewing a paper is to try to redo the work (as much as possible) to gauge my output and outcome compared to the manuscript (this is scientific research basics, I confess) then I evaluate with the rest of criteria to give an advise on the publishability. But the same is true for the references: it is codified by centuries of scientific works and not discussed. If the author references to an article, I am able to get it and read it exactly as the author. If you reference a wikipedia page, I will run into trouble to ascertain I have red the same content as you have. This changes the rules of scientific communication too much and in my opinion this kind of behavior would lead to a big loss of credibility.

I love wikipedia por general concepts or definitions, but as soon as I get an idea I would try to find more serious references. But, wikipedia usually has a note about the information, sometimes it says it needs more references or gramar is not good or something like that. I assume that a entry with no comments means it's a good one, BUT it can be one witj no readings, so it's good to teach students to decide the value of the information depending what they need.

In the past, did professors ever discourage students from using Encyclopedia Britannica and bar students from citing it??

Personally, I squirrel away a copy of any Wikipedia page I reference so that I have a frozen copy in the unlikely event of a dispute, just as I would keep a photocopy of that Britannica entry.

In my research methodology lectures, I demonstrate my students that they can actively edit any information on Wikipedia. This possibility makes Wikipedia vulnerable to biased authors. Although it is a good starting point, I prefer to verify the information provided by referring the cited papers. Then I quote only original references rather than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is definitely a great resource, but one needs to practice caution as sometimes amatures get to edit it.

@Ian, the difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is that the former is easily edited and the later was vetted for accuracy. While Wikipedia has been getting better at making it harder for people to just randomly change established pages, information on little changed/used articles could potentially be biased or contain inaccuracies. Wikipedia is a useful tool in finding introductory information quickly that can then be verified with a more proper literature search.