References are important for context, in conveying meaning to others in daily conversations, and even more in research. But how trustworthy is the reference used?
The reason iWikipedia has no trust is disarmingly simple: From the moment you cite an article to me, someone else may change it nonsensically, and I would be asked to read not what you sent, but nonsense. It is based on a wrong process, that is not how nature works.
Wikipedia is banned as a reference even in high-school, it goes against basic notions of trust.No amount of Wikipedia editors will solve it, it is not instantaneous, and they do form claques, making the problem worse, as cited in my long-standing experiment, with falsities often masquerind as truth, even supported by sock-puppets and groups in anti-science movements, political views, and fanaticism such as "special relativity is wrong", a single photon has mass, a vector cross product is a vector, etc.
But Wikipedia is good because it teaches the researcher to not trust anyone. Trust yourself, look for references that are not controlled by conflicts of interest and outright fraud, such as knowing it has no trust, but having correct information is something you have to decide. But others see it intersubjectively.
Therefore, one would be REALLY careful to JUST use Wikipedia for one's own education, not to be trusted as the final or even recent correct word, nor as a reference to others or in RG. Wikipedia articles, in observations since Dec/2015, have been changed wrongly, provably:
Research The Wikipedia Experiment: falsification and knowledge decay
by its own accredited editors, and by any willy-nilly jokester, who can change it right now, and the wrong text is propagated with a surprising long lifetime, and claque effects, including sock-puppets, in what could be described as artificial attractors, stable points of dynamic interaction -- even though they are incorrect or just nonsense.
Examples and counter-examples are welcome, mainly in exact or experimental sciences, such as physics and maths, where one can prove answers. Examples in humanities, which is not in the natural or formal sciences, should not be used, also for apolitical reasons.
I think Wikipedia should only be used as a jump start to get overlooked idea about concepts or theories. I do recommend my students to use it to explore concept definitions and taxonomies. But when they are requested to provide write research reports, they would user reportable resources instead.
I think a careful use of Wikipedia for personal means is alright. However, since it is often considered a tertiary source, therefore, relying on its content for any sort of academic, business, or journalistic purposes would be unsuitable.
I think Wikipedia is very useful for getting an idea about concepts and topic we are willing to read and research . It also provides readers with a list of references about the topic; and that can be used for getting more details about topics we investigate especially when we work on academic papers. I advise readers to get benefits from Wikipedia but not to refer to it in their academic publications. It is better to get deeper in the original works from which Wikipedia gets its information.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics