Food For Thought -- Wikipedia as a source?

[rEliseMe]

When I was in high school, my teachers vehemently protested the use of Wikipedia as a source. As my humanities teacher explained, "Wikipedia is useful as an aggregate of other sources -- as a 'jumping off' point. It is not an appropriate citation." I wholeheartedly agree with this perspective. Using Wikipedia as a source in a professional document (or presentation) is the same as using 'expert opinion', which was described in my Evidence Based Practice lecture as the least-valuable evidence when it comes to EBP.

So imagine my surprise when I encountered two professors in one semester who unabashedly used Wikipedia as a source in their lectures. Do you think this is a byproduct of individual lack of effort ("I don't want to find the journal to cite this so I'll just use Wikipedia."), by Wikipedia's growth ("Now that it's so popular, someone, somewhere would have corrected it if it were wrong!") or by our culture's pressure to be young and hip ("If I use Wikipedia, my students will think I keep up better with today's technology.")?


Call me old-fashioned! Citing sources is very important to me. I may not do it all the time when I post on forums. But when it comes to presentations, I place a very high importance on varied, valid, and relevant information from reputable sources.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cochlear]

My personal belief is that Wikipedia makes for a great, "Hey I wonder about such and such..." or a basic "jumping off" point like you mentioned. Any other uses, especially in a research paper (unless it's about Wikipedia ) or lecture seems unethical and sort of lazy.

 

[rEliseMe]

...seems unethical and sort of lazy.

Four thumbs-up to that, Cochlear! I 100% agree.

I think it devalues our profession, too. If Wikipedia can tell me everything I need to know, what's the point in going to school?

 

[cidanu]

you CANNOT cite wikipedia ever. although i do find it useful for satisfying personal curiosity and sometimes even as a tool for studying.

with google scholar now there's really no excuse for citing wikipedia.

listening to some of my professors describe how they had to research their dissertations with card catalogs, nights and days in the library, and taking notes on articles (yes some even before widespread use of copy machines) has made me really appreciate the digital age.

 

[rEliseMe]

listening to some of my professors describe how they had to research their dissertations with card catalogs, nights and days in the library, and taking notes on articles (yes some even before widespread use of copy machines) has made me really appreciate the digital age.

WOW. I can't imagine searching via card catalogs. I do enjoy spending time in the library, though, with hard copies of journals. I visited the library at UIowa when I went to meet the professors and out of all the photos I took, most were in the library! haha. I have a few of me holding up the ASHA Leader like a total dweeb, but I love it. (I love it so much I made it my avatar!)

I've started printing, highlighting, note-writing, and indexing all of the articles in run across that are remotely interesting. I plan to start a library out of it when I get to the point of having enough for a bookshelf or filing cabinet. Right now I'm at close to 100 articles since last September.

Magazines are overrated. I'll have peer-reviewed journals on the back of my crapper!

 

[Integralpix]

Are you sure you wouldn't actually prefer a career in library science?

 

[rEliseMe]

Are you sure you wouldn't actually prefer a career in library science?

Haha, yes, 100%. I wouldn't read the articles if they weren't fascinating to me. I'm a total audiology nerd already, and I'm only an undergrad.

 

[Tranquil]

you CANNOT cite wikipedia ever. although i do find it useful for satisfying personal curiosity and sometimes even as a tool for studying. with google scholar now there's really no excuse for citing wikipedia.

This is in my view not correct. There are many things that you will not find in Journals or books in the sense that you can quote them in an authoritative manner. They are known as things that amount to common knowledge and things that are obvious - such thing belong to no one so quoting from Professor Blogg's book a definition of say 'best practice' carries no authority because Professor Bloggs did not invent the idea and does not own it and in any case it is something where shades of opinion are involved.

In fact if you in an essay for me quoted from a book something that is common knowledge I would penalise you because because you should know what is or is not common knowledge. However, what I would allow is that when we comes across a concept like 'best practice' where it is obvious there can be no universally agree definition then if you say that and tell me that as a starting point you found a useful definition in Wikipedia then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that since you are not claiming any authority for it. For those that are interested I might summarise. But of course these are all themselves common knowledge or obvious

Common Knowledge - If something is described as "common knowledge" it implies that many, if not most people know it. Such information does not belong to anyone person and it cannot normally be deduced, rather it has to be learned. It is probably talked about in several sources: the world is round, computers contain processors and memory, nothing goes faster than light are all examples of "common knowledge". If it is common knowledge, you do not need to cite a source. Be careful because some authors will write down in their own work things that are common knowledge. In such cases, quoting them in that instance amounts to saying that a bit of what is common knowledge actually belongs to that author and that of course is an absurdity.

Obvious Knowledge - If something is described as "obvious" it implies that most people know it. Such information does not belong to anyone person but it can be discovered rationally or empirically. It is probably talked about in several sources: companies tend to grow, when the sun goes down it gets dark are all examples of "obvious knowledge". If it is obvious you do not need to cite a source. Be careful because again some authors will write down the obvious in their own work. Quoting them in that instance amounts to saying that what is obvious to everyone actually belongs to that author and that of course is an absurdity.

Published Knowledge - Published knowledge refers to ideas and information that is found in a specific primary source which is not common or obvious knowledge but is nevertheless useful; in these cases you must always cite the source.

Original Knowledge - In any work you may include freely original ideas of your own. However, be aware that if a reader uncovers an idea that is not cited, is not common knowledge nor obvious, then they are entitled to believe that it is a new idea from you. If in fact this is not the case, then you will have plagiarised it, which is a serious academic offence. It follows that if you are introducing an idea of your own you should make it clear by the way it is presented that this is indeed your own work.​

Plagiarism
Many Universities define plagiarism very simply and make students conform: "I understand that wherever 6 or more consecutive words are extracted from a source they must be acknowledged and 10 consecutive words that are unacknowledged will be regarded as proof of plagiarism"

Scholarship is about showing your understanding and criticism of ideas. It should be obvious that simply copying, paraphrasing or summarising, although it can show a limited understanding, fails to show any ability to criticise. You must add value, that is make your own contribution to knowledge and you can usually only do this by both expressing published ideas in some way and also mingling them with your own thoughts, questions, criticism and ideas.

Plagiarism is about stealing ideas, and even if you express the idea in your own words, (which is often good scholarship) you may still be guilty of plagiarism if you do not credit the source. For example and to exaggerate a little, supposed one copied in its entirety an essay from another student, giving it full attribution and then submitted it as your own work to the tutor – it is obvious this is not acceptable and it would be regarded as plagiarism because the perpetrator has done nothing that is unquestionably their own.

The same thing would apply if you copied into your work a quotation for example but then failed to introduce it or make any comments about it or show its validity in a given argument. Set against all that is a principle of usage of other peoples work and usage is the key to avoiding plagiarism – it was written by Goethe many years ago.

What is there is mine, and whether I got it from books or life is of no consequence. The only point is, whether I have made a right use of it.​

If plagiarism occurs in your work, it will not matter if you say it was accidental, or you were just careless or you did not know how to to quote and cite correctly. It will still be regarded as a serious offence. It is hard to say exactly how to avoid plagiarism but in general the best way is to read widely and especially scholarly work and then you will gradually learn how it is done and that is in many ways the best teacher.

 

[rEliseMe]

I have to respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is an aggregate of sources and wrought with mistakes, misinformation, and incomplete information. It's fine as a starting point but should not be used in formal essays or presentations, even just for a definition.

There is nothing wrong with citing several different sources to both define a topic and enumerate its different dimensions. In fact, I believe it shows strength of argument to offer multiple sources of evidence in favor and knowledge of sources counter to one's article.

It's not about claiming authority for Wikipedia sources, it's about treating it as more legitimate than it is.

This is in my view not correct. There are many things that you will not find in Journals or books in the sense that you can quote them in an authoritative manner. They are known as things that amount to common knowledge and things that are obvious - such thing belong to no one so quoting from Professor Blogg's book a definition of say 'best practice' carries no authority because Professor Bloggs did not invent the idea and does not own it and in any case it is something where shades of opinion are involved.

In fact if you in an essay for me quoted from a book something that is common knowledge I would penalise you because because you should know what is or is not common knowledge. However, what I would allow is that when we comes across a concept like 'best practice' where it is obvious there can be no universally agree definition then if you say that and tell me that as a starting point you found a useful definition in Wikipedia then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that since you are not claiming any authority for it.

 

[Tranquil]

I have to respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is an aggregate of sources and wrought with mistakes, misinformation, and incomplete information. It's fine as a starting point but should not be used in formal essays or presentations, even just for a definition. There is nothing wrong with citing several different sources to both define a topic and enumerate its different dimensions. In fact, I believe it shows strength of argument to offer multiple sources of evidence in favor and knowledge of sources counter to one's article. It's not about claiming authority for Wikipedia sources, it's about treating it as more legitimate than it is.

You might be right. You might like to know that no less a luminary than Craig Venter of synthetic bacterium, nicknamed Synthia fame used a Wikipedia definition for just the common knowledge/obvious element I spoke about at a televised lecture in London last year. Talk to ANY academic in and they will say something along the following lines "Wikipedia is an aggregate of sources and wrought with mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information, untrustworthy and unregulated - but I use it every day.

Obviously if one is writing a paper or essay or project or indeed anything, the object is to go to the primary sources if you can and they are typically found in journals. Sadly, one often finds in student work, essays littered with quotations but bereft of any real analysis - as Jesus once said "they think they will be heard for the much speaking".

But journal articles can and have frequently been wrong and it is not at all unusual for papers to be later withdrawn (ie the MMR row of recent year). So one cannot shut down your critical apparatus because its a journal and that apparatus is no different when you go to Wikipedia. Let's face it Archimedes principle or Dirac's equation is no less true or authoritative because you can find it in Wikipedia.

What I am advocating is that it's the knowledge you are after and that might be found anywhere and once you have a feeling for it go for the primary sources and then as Goethe indicated it's a matter of what you can do with it.

Students often say "I will only take advice, information from someone I respect" - odd really because its shows they want their ego polished not their brains challenged. Daniel Goleman author of the book "Emotional Intelligence" tells how he learned one of the most important lessons of his life from a black bus driver on a steamy August afternoon taking a bus up Madison Avenue - and it was a lesson he was in no mood to learn. Stephen Hawking got his best idea waiting at an Oxford Railway station. Einstein did not find special relativity in a Journal.

So I want everyone to be open and to understand as someone said that "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge". So if a student came to you and said he had found an interesting idea after searching Wikipedia would you just ridicule or listen to what he has to say? Professor Jacob Bronowski (famous TV personality, see his entry in Wikipedia!!) 60 years ago said to his students "It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to hero-worship what is known but to question it".

Not sure if all this adds anything?

 

[rEliseMe]

You might like to know that no less a luminary than Craig Venter of synthetic bacterium, nicknamed Synthia fame used a Wikipedia definition for just the common knowledge/obvious element I spoke about at a televised lecture in London last year.

That doesn't make it right.

Talk to ANY academic in and they will say something along the following lines "Wikipedia is an aggregate of sources and wrought with mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information, untrustworthy and unregulated - but I use it every day.

Using Wikipedia and quoting Wikipedia are two very different things.

But journal articles can and have frequently been wrong and it is not at all unusual for papers to be later withdrawn (ie the MMR row of recent year).

That's why you cite more than one.

So I want everyone to be open and to understand as someone said that "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge". So if a student came to you and said he had found an interesting idea after searching Wikipedia would you just ridicule or listen to what he has to say?

Like I said above, it's not about looking at, reading, or using Wikipedia. It's about citing Wikipedia as a source on the same level as peer-reviewed journals or in many cases, the dictionary. I wouldn't ridicule anyone for researching on their own time, but I would certainly hope that if the student or peer who approached me was truly interested in learning about the topic, he or she would graduate to primary sources for further study beyond Wikipedia, and that he or she would avoid citing Wikipedia in any formal presentation, essay, or project.

 

[Tranquil]

That doesn't make it right. Using Wikipedia and quoting Wikipedia are two very different things. That's why you cite more than one.

I don't think I was arguing about right and wrong but about appropriate use, with use being the important idea. One of course understands there is a hierarchy involved here that is why I emphasised primary sources as the key idea. I am not sure what you imply by "more than one" as it sounds like you have a kind of set of rules and that I would dislike though I might go along with some guidelines of that sort.

Like I said above, it's not about looking at, reading, or using Wikipedia. It's about citing Wikipedia as a source on the same level as peer-reviewed journals or in many cases, the dictionary.

Well we might just agree here and if someone was researching antipyretic drugs I would expect them to use suitable journal or study trials to build up and demonstrate their expertise. If they looked at Wikepedia for this they should immediately realise that the entry is poor, not because its Wikipedia as such but because there are virtually no references - ie that is how we look at any source. But with any source we might consider the Journal, the author and usually its currency as telling us a bit about its quality. So IF one quotes or cites anything the reader, if they know anything at all can judge for themselves. Have you read "on Fact and Fraud" by David Goodstein? If not it is well worth it and makes you understand that caution with sources is ALWAYS needed, peer reviewed or not.

I wouldn't ridicule anyone for researching on their own time, but I would certainly hope that if the student or peer who approached me was truly interested in learning about the topic, he or she would graduate to primary sources for further study beyond Wikipedia, and that he or she would avoid citing Wikipedia in any formal presentation, essay, or project.

Well if by 'truly interested' you mean that motivation at its heart is about seeing that intelligence is not a fixed quantity, valuing effort, seeking challenges and persistence in the face of obstacles where learning cannot be done if we remove individual responsibility, active involvement and choices from the process because to do so would undermine the values of any successful education: personal discipline, independence of thought, worthwhile learning effort and simple curiosity. (see books by Carol Dweck on "Mindset")

In short I might go along with you about formal written work not citing Wikipedia unless its as a starting point for common knowledge or the obvious but I am for looking anywhere and everywhere with a critical mind.

 

[Tranquil]

One area where Wikepedia is the most suspect is when you look at biographical details and this is especially troublesome when the persons involved are living and in one way or another are in the public eye.

There have in fact be a number of cases where biographical details have been deliberately tampered with to give a negative image and this is often done with malicious intent. It is in fact easy to do by simply adding a few words. So where the correct version says "Smith is an advocate of press freedom" is easily twisted to say "Smith is not an advocate of press freedom".

So as always be on you guard and check and double check what you find (anywhere not just Wikipedia) before committing it to paper.