Page 1 of 1
College: Wikipedia not approved source for papers
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:29 pm
by bubba
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_ ... NeReftiBIF
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.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:20 pm
by dicecca112
well duh, anyone using wiki should be sent back to HS. There is this thing called books people
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:30 pm
by cyberneticimplant
Not surprising. In my chemistry classes we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference.
I agree with that policy. When writing a paper it is unprofessional to use information from sources that anyone can edit.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:49 am
by bubba
Thought you college guys would get a kick out of that.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:14 am
by R3N3G4D3
dicecca112 wrote:well duh, anyone using wiki should be sent back to HS. There is this thing called books people
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).
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:25 pm
by Antonik
My college doesn't allow wikipedia as a source, So its pretty common policy.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:05 pm
by Kougar
Yeah, for every major term paper or research project we've always been told Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Of course about half also said to either not use internet sources at all, or keep them to one or two at most. ;)
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:21 am
by Digital Puppy
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.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:54 am
by Sovereign
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.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:18 pm
by mongol05
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.
Re: College: Wikipedia not approved source for papers
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:07 pm
by Zelig
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.
My thoughts exactly.
cyberneticimplant wrote:I agree with that policy. When writing a paper it is unprofessional to use information from sources that anyone can edit.
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.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:31 pm
by amdme127
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.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:55 pm
by Azndude51
amdme127 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.
I completely agree with you
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:49 am
by stev
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.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:30 pm
by amdme127
That's the way to go. Be sure of the information you glean and then check it if need be. Overall I have found it to be pretty darn accurate.
Topic
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:38 am
by DrPsyche
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.