1. The95Writer
    Offline

    The95Writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    10

    Citing Wikipedia Articles?

    Discussion in 'General Writing' started by The95Writer, Apr 7, 2014.

    What are your opinions on references Wikipedia? I notice Wikipedia is 'hated on' all the time.
     
  2. Thomas Kitchen
    Offline

    Thomas Kitchen Proofreader in the Making Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    I'm Welsh - and proud!
    Most of the time Wikipedia is correct, but it's not a "proper" source. In universities and other such places, it is a huge no-no. But it depends what you're referencing it for: a blog, a novel, etc. would be fine, and it could even be used for humourous purposes e.g. writing an article for a newspaper and stating that so and so is a "fact proven by Wikipedia".

    Universities and formal projects = No way.
    Informal projects, humourous articles, and other things = Most likely okay.
     
  3. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Wikipedia has some very good entries and some very wrong entries. I use it as a source of sources. People have often done the search for you and you can go to the links for original sources. It's always best to find original sources be it a news report or Wiki you are reading someone's opinion or interpretation of those original sources in.
     
  4. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    i use it as a starting point only... if i don't find the info i need, or can't be sure of its authenticiy, since all wiki content is from volunteers who are not vetted, i will check out listed resources or do some creative googling...

    no one should take all wiki has to offer as 'gospel'...
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2014
  5. The95Writer
    Offline

    The95Writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, highly true. I am writing a non-fiction book and I assume that it may be frown upon.
     
  6. Burlbird
    Offline

    Burlbird Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
     
  7. Lemex
    Offline

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,507
    Likes Received:
    3,151
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Use it as a starting point, use the articles at the bottom.
     
    Link the Writer likes this.
  8. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,221
    Likes Received:
    4,227
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    That's what my professors told me: Wiki can be used to get you going, but not as a source itself because anyone can change it. Use reliable sources like official sites, that sort of thing. For my papers, it was always a site ending with '.edu' or '.gov'.
     
  9. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    What others have said. It's useful for finding "real" sources, but you can't really cite it in a paper and I wouldn't use it in non-fiction either.
     
  10. Michael Collins
    Offline

    Michael Collins Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    Rome, Italy.
    I have yet to meet someone who actually has ever seen all the wrong or bad entries in Wikipedia.
     
  11. Burlbird
    Offline

    Burlbird Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    French author Michael Houellebecq thinks otherwise: :)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/i-stole-from-wikipedia-but-its-not-plagiarism-says-houellebecq-2073145.html
    While he's still full of s... he makes some interesting notions there (I have a love-and-hate relationship with his books, but I still think all the accusations for misogyny and racism against him are just excuses by people who can't stand explicit sexual content in his work, can't figure out how to contextualize it, but are too "liberal" to acknowledge their own conservatism...)

    Back to topic: @The95Writer
    If you have to cite from wikipedia, always include date and time information in your citation. The reason for this should be obvious: while content of wiki articles can change literary from second to second, all the changes history is saved, so whoever wants to check the source needs to know what to look for.

    However, I think you should always rethink the reasons for using an unreliable source in the first place. When discussing this problem with some colleagues, the first thing everybody agreed on is that while it's okay to use wiki in the research process, it's not a clever move to actually base your research on it. The most obvious parallel would be using private conversations: you can refer to them, but you can't expect anyone to take them as a serious source of information, simply because they are not verifiable.

    The better way to use wikipedia articles (and this is completely my opinion) is to, first of all, understand that a good article is also a sourced article: that is, you can expect it to have a full bibliography and appropriate links to on-line sources. This should be a stepping stone in your research - use the sources directly, and make your own conclusions based on them. While many wikipedia contributors may be experts in the field, most of them are laics (at best hobbyists). So, think of wikipedia as a place where people interested in a subject put online their own opinions and conclusions, basing them on more reliable and verifiable sources.

    Of course, if you just need definitions and guidelines, you can always use Britannica, which is a regular encyclopedia I don't think anyone would object to. They have some good articles and, if you have a chance to have full access to, can provide viable source of information (and citation). And don't forget not to be lazy and use our friend The Google - and don't be lazy to skip through the first 20 search pages to find interesting stuff... :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
    KaTrian likes this.
  12. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    Cool.
    And if the non-fiction book is about 'sources for scientific papers and non-fiction books,' it'd make sense to include Wikipedia and also use it as a source ;)
     
  13. Burlbird
    Offline

    Burlbird Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    @KaTrian in a way yes - I remember a friend's paper on emoticons in online communication, and he was naturally using an internet forum as his primary source. If I want to write about, for example, how wikipedia handles citations or copyright, I'm going to use wikipedia as a source :) But that would be using the text itself, not the information that text tries to convey... Or, if you like, writing about a discourse versus writing from a discourse. Going META :D
     

Share This Page