MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use
Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.
The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.
College: Wikipedia not approved source for papers
College: Wikipedia not approved source for papers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_ ... NeReftiBIF
- dicecca112
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:40 am
- Contact:
-
- Legit Fanatic
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:00 pm
Papers and research is one thing, but when I want to find quick information about some recent invention or industry-adopted standard, would make a lot more sense to check wikipedia than my university library. I understand schools having a problem with students relying solely on wikipedia, however it is a very good starting point even for research papers (especially considering that it generally lists a plethora of other sources for most of its information).dicecca112 wrote:well duh, anyone using wiki should be sent back to HS. There is this thing called books people
- Digital Puppy
- Moderator
- Posts: 4649
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:36 pm
- Location: LA LA Land, CA
- Contact:
I agree with most colleges...as a prof, I wouldn't (and don't) accept Wiki as a valid source for the reasons above. BUT, I do tell my students to go to Wiki for a better understanding of a topic and then identify valid sources of research from there. IMO Wikipedia is a good place for general understand or for an high-level overview.
Just a little puppy trying to make it in a big digital world.
I would use Wikipedia for college stuff. But not the way you think. I'd find information in it (this is where the "good article" requirement comes in) that I wanted, and check its sources. Then, I'd find a source used in the article that is credible, and cite THAT.
Play
Q6600 @ 3.2GHz :: 8GB DDR2-800 :: eVGA 9800GX2 :: 7900GTX (secondary) :: abit IP35 Pro :: 150GB Raptor 10k RPM :: 2x750GB WD Caviar :: 120GB WD :: X-Fi XtremeMusic :: NEC 4551A :: BenQ DVD Combodrive (52x32x52) :: Dual 22" Acer AL2216W :: Thermaltake Armor Black :: Logitech Z5500 5.1
Work
Core 2 Duo @ 2.53GHz :: 4GB DDR3 @ 1067MHz :: 3670 :: Intel PM45 Chipset :: 500GB 5400RPM SATA :: Integrated Audio :: BD-ROM/DVD Burner :: 16" 1920x1080 RGBLED
Q6600 @ 3.2GHz :: 8GB DDR2-800 :: eVGA 9800GX2 :: 7900GTX (secondary) :: abit IP35 Pro :: 150GB Raptor 10k RPM :: 2x750GB WD Caviar :: 120GB WD :: X-Fi XtremeMusic :: NEC 4551A :: BenQ DVD Combodrive (52x32x52) :: Dual 22" Acer AL2216W :: Thermaltake Armor Black :: Logitech Z5500 5.1
Work
Core 2 Duo @ 2.53GHz :: 4GB DDR3 @ 1067MHz :: 3670 :: Intel PM45 Chipset :: 500GB 5400RPM SATA :: Integrated Audio :: BD-ROM/DVD Burner :: 16" 1920x1080 RGBLED
I am an avid fan of Wikipedia. Whenever I have a question, I look there, but I wouldn't use it for a research paper. There have been too many times I've clicked on an article and seen, "OMG! I TOTALLY HAXXOR'D WIKIPEDIA LAWL!" to use it as a credible source.
Porthos
Asus M2N SLI Deluxe | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | 2 GB Corsair XMS2 PC6400 | eVGA Geforce 7900 GT 256 MB
Athos
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 | Athlon 64 3000+ | 1 GB PNY PC3200 | eVGA Geforce 6800 128 MB
Asus M2N SLI Deluxe | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | 2 GB Corsair XMS2 PC6400 | eVGA Geforce 7900 GT 256 MB
Athos
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 | Athlon 64 3000+ | 1 GB PNY PC3200 | eVGA Geforce 6800 128 MB
Re: College: Wikipedia not approved source for papers
My thoughts exactly.History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.
The problem isn't so much that anyone can edit wiki, but rather that it's an encyclopedia. For academic papers, one should use primary sources if possible, or secondary sources, not tertiary sources like encyclopedias.cyberneticimplant wrote:I agree with that policy. When writing a paper it is unprofessional to use information from sources that anyone can edit.
I used wikipedia on multiple occasions to research up stuff for fun or as a starting point for papers. I usually find that wikipedia has the same information on it and doesn't waste time with boring details like about 6-15 of the official sites. I happen to find it quite accurate for everything that I have looked up.
But still need to check sources and not make it the final researched data.
But still need to check sources and not make it the final researched data.
I completely agree with youamdme127 wrote:I used wikipedia on multiple occasions to research up stuff for fun or as a starting point for papers. I usually find that wikipedia has the same information on it and doesn't waste time with boring details like about 6-15 of the official sites. I happen to find it quite accurate for everything that I have looked up.
But still need to check sources and not make it the final researched data.
- stev
- Legit Extremist
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:29 am
- Location: Nashville, TN suburbs
- Contact:
I've used Wikipedia for general reference. By no means is it fully acurate or conclusive.
There is a bit of mis-information in it too. However, I only glean things that can be verified from it.
There is a bit of mis-information in it too. However, I only glean things that can be verified from it.
AMD X2 TK-57 1.90Ghz | F700 Quanta | PC2-5300 DDR2 2Gb | GeForce 7000M | DVDRAM GSA-T40N | HP LaserJet 1018
My Stats http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=303718
http://www.eff.org - Electronic Frontier Foundation - working to protect your digital rights
My Stats http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=303718
http://www.eff.org - Electronic Frontier Foundation - working to protect your digital rights
Topic
We were allowed to cite Wikipedia in our high school papers though. Now, scholars may get rejected from journals (academic publications), because they are constantly citing Wikipedia pages.
Funny > Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
MOD EDIT - Any more of the stupid spam links and you will be banned.
Funny > Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
MOD EDIT - Any more of the stupid spam links and you will be banned.