Dear researchers, do you regularly consult “Wikipedia” in connection with your teaching? If so, please, how often? Further, do you usually find its References being useful sources of information for the above activity? Please, elaborate on which respect and extent. Any further comments? Thanks so much!
In another respect - dear researchers - notice that in this thread, although your kind answers to the posed question are gratefully appreciated, nonetheless I will not comment on them beyond a polite succinct acknowledgement: so that my opinion regarding the relevant subject matter is not revealed. In doing so, I try to avoid any undesirable potential bias, from my part, that could result in the final statistical outcome of the whole project. Please, I beg you not to regard my attitude as lack of due politeness. Thank you very much!
Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopedia. It contains a lot of unverified information. Some articles are evaluative in nature. Therefore, you need to check the facts of Wikipedia by other sources.
A definite standard of research today is peer review. One might well argue that unless a set of references has been carefully peer-reviewed, there may be omissions in non-peer reviewed reference sets. Assuming that there is agreement on what constitutes an adequate peer review process.
1. A graduate students' guide to involvement in the peer review process
https://www.apa.org/research/publishing/peer-review.pdfWhy should graduate students become involved in peer review? ... transition into the greater involvement with peer review that is necessary during their career.
2. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers - Committee on Publication ...
https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdfPeer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the ... Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but ...
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia
Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased. Many of the general rules of thumb for conducting research apply to Wikipedia, including:
Always be wary of any one single source (in any medium—web, print, television or radio), or of multiple works that derive from a single source.
Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says.
In most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper. Some encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica have notable authors working for them and may be cited as a secondary source in some cases; institutional policies will vary. For example,Cornell University's online guide to APA style uses citations from Britannica in some of its examples.
However, because of Wikipedia's unique nature, there are also some rules for conducting research that are special to Wikipedia, and some general rules that do not apply to Wikipedia.
.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia
Dear Barbara, Dennis, Mohannad and Syed,
Many thanks!, for your answers to my question: certainly, they will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
In my opinion i think Wikipedia is considered one of the most important sources of information in the present day, but we must not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, edited by everyone, amateur and professional alike, and that the articles are not subject to review before publication so the probability of error information more than the probability of right and this is what makes us to verify the information From other sources
Dear Ibrahim,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
In my opinion Wikipedia is a very good source of primary information. For further details or for cross checking one has to go to the references cited there in.
Dear Ashis,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Despite some of its shortcomings Wikipedia is the greatest encyclopedic reference source produced so far in the world. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana etc. the number of articles are not more than a few thousand and the articles are all backdated. Compared to that the articles in Wikipedia are all up-to-date and there are clear indications in the articles where references are needed, editing is needed, and so on. I am a researcher, and guide a number of research students for their PhD. Wikipedia does not disappoint me.
Dear Bimal,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
It's a good question. Really Wikipeadea gives more information on a specific topic. But it is important to evaluatethe information for authority, relevance, currentliness, and so on. As wikipeadia has room for input information by any one, this would not be accepted as a reliable source to use for scholarly works. Therefore, though researchers could access background information from Wikipeadia , it is advisable to use an encyclopeadia for scholarly work. Reliability is a very important critiera to be considered.
It is just a guildline not a reliable info. In my time Britanica Encylopedia was reliable... and still is. Any on line versons would provide better info than wikipedia. Best.
A researcher can refer wikipedia but not always authentic source to put as reference; due to online editing process information keep on changing in Wikipedia, therefore as a researcher I don't completely rely on Wikipedia information rather I refer other sources to verify.
If you are new to a topic, Wikipedia is a great place to start. Words are usually spelled correctly and the short synopses provide introductory background information. Following the references can lead to higher quality information such as peer-reviewed journal articles. Keep following the sources of information and you will find information worthy of being cited in your original work. Wikipedia is not a credible or reliable source--dig deeper.
Dear Maitrayee, Margarite, Mohamed and Senad,
Many thanks!, for your answers to my question: certainly, they will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Wikipedia in research papers is unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment.
I think it depends on the subject. The subjects present in Wikipedia are treated in different way depending on those who have composed the articles.
Wikipedia is not acceptable as a reference source by many places. However, students can refer to materials for a simple explanation of the subject.
Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia and useful sources of information, especially the information we need quickly, it gives us correct information in all disciplines and scientific fields
Greetings
Wikipedia has useful information, but I think it's not an important source for researchers, For example, writing scientific papers.
Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopedia. It contains a lot of unverified information. Some articles are evaluative in nature. Therefore, you need to check the facts of Wikipedia by other sources.
Wiki is not mandetory because there are so many classical text books may be needed for conventional teaching .
Sometimes I use it to clarify or understand something, but not as accurate ref., because any one can write an information there under his responsibility
إن ويكيبيديا هبي موسوعة ثقافية معلوماتية، ولكن ليس بالضرورة أن تكون مصدرا للنشاط التدريسي، أي يجب أن تكون مصادر التدريس من مصادر منهجية حديثة قابلة للتطور واستيعاب ثقافة المتعلمين
Sometimes I use it to get information about something, but because anyone can write in so it is not accurate references
Wikipedia is somewhat useful for teaching fundamental topics. I tried it several times. However, it is unreliable for advanced topics, as it contains many nonreferenced information. I think Wikipedia needs updating periodically.
Not all the times because some of its information has to be verified for accuracy
I think Wikipedia is fairly useful, but it is not reliable in the advanced educational aspect, because it contains a large number of non-reference information.
Do not serve any scientific research
General information is not reliable
Certainly, anyone who writes in Wikipedia depends on the sources, but those who try to benefit from Wikipedia should review the source and sober to ensure the correctness of the transfer and the correctness of the subject to be studied.
Caution is very important.
The most important characteristic of Wikipedia is that it contains comprehensive information that is general and not specialized. Easy to access but not reliable as references
In most cases wiki is enough for initial information. But for professional use I prefer professional sources.
As University Teacher (Arts), I prefer other information sources, more reliable for scientific research.
As most specialists, I'm not an "luminary of all sciences". There are things in that I understand as "a pig in the oranges". In this case, a wiki is enough for an initial introduction to the problem. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the quality of the articles is very unequal. Some articles are quite suitable for the "broad specialist", at least in English and Russian. In addition to that, sometimes I use Wikipedia to search for scientific terms in other languages. Sometimes it turns out. This situation reminds me of my attitude to popular science films. When I look at something about history or geography, I say "how interesting it is!". If the film is about physics or chemistry, I start to swear, and very dirty way...
From my experience, students feel that Wikipedia is simple to understand and sufficient as a first touch base for learning about the subject. For professionals, a simple explanation may not be a comprehensive explanation. As long as it can stimulate interest and learning, this will help the students to go deeper into the subject to find out more.
Yeah, they will be useful if the hard copy of each reference in your hand. Researchers have to visit several websites in order to gather information about a certain amount of knowledge. But at the end of the day, hard copies and physical book is a must in the "Works Cited" of our papers.
Thanks for those postgraduate question, and the academic recommendations, dear!
mostly Wikipedia is not reliable but as for as references is concern its better to cross verify before using it in some kind of thesis or research articles.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching