Insights Why You Should Not Use Wikipedia As Your Primary Source - Comments

[ZapperZ]

I don't think that accuracy is the only goal (or even the primary goal) of a live interactive, cross-linked, globally-accessible free encyclopedia - unlike anything else the world has ever seen.

I believe it represents the first modern learning system - I love it because it is an "open-world" of associated concepts with introductory (or better) explanations for just about anything and everything, at the tips your fingers, steered only by your uncertainty and curiousity. It's extensibility and potential for contributing to education is limitless.

I am grateful from the bottom of my heart to the people who honestly try to make it better - like correcting content to match the canon, calling out unsettled or controversial stuff, policing the contribution process, adding awesome graphics and pictures, linking every page to deeper more orthodox content. I believe they are the ones with my interests at heart.

I contribute money to it regularly. Maybe rich educational institutions should do the same.

And good luck railing against it.

But I really would like to find out (i) what you actually learned and (ii) whether what you learned is actually correct.

Again, I'm using that Photoelectric Effect page. Let's say you want to know what it is. Can you do what you would normally do, be it either use Wikipedia as your sole, primary source, or use it and then go look somewhere else to verify (which is what I would recommend), and then tell me what you have learned as what is meant by "Photoelectric Effect". I would really like to quiz you on certain parts of the entry (no, you don't have to memorize any of them, you can look at it as much as you want) and figure out what you have understood out of that page. It isn't meant to put you down or to show how much you don't know. I am truly curious what people actually learned out of such a page, especially when, in my opinion, the material was horribly presented.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

A first hand account is a "primary source". So your complaint is with Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" is that it is not intended to be a primary source? I see, you are insisting that Wikipedia should be a primary source. Yes, that is indeed a disagreement with its "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY".

Aren't you tired of twisting my words and mangling my point already by now? Or is this a hobby of yours?

Point #1 that I stated earlier, which is what I referred to in my reply to mathwonk, has NOTHING to do with what is meant by 'primary source'! It is about the RUNNING of Wikipedia and the "cult of the amateur"! Read it again! Sheeesh!

Zz.

 

[micromass]

I don't understand what you're arguing against atyy. You seem to be bringing up some very pedantic points now, but you have never pointed up what your stance is towards wikipedia and Zz's article. Zz does not mean a first hand account to be a primary source. No, it's not the usual definition, but who cares.

Can you say what your actual stance is, vs just bringing up small points as an argument?

 

[atyy]

I don't understand what you're arguing against atyy. You seem to be bringing up some very pedantic points now, but you have never pointed up what your stance is towards wikipedia and Zz's article. Zz does not mean a first hand account to be a primary source. No, it's not the usual definition, but who cares.

Can you say what your actual stance is, vs just bringing up small points as an argument?

My stance is that Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" is good and it is not flawed.

Criticizing Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" on the basis that some misuse it is not correct criticism of Wikipedia, since it is not intended to be a primary source.

Furthermore, I find the suggestion that there should be "sole sources" (using ZapperZ's own definition of "primary source") and the argument from authority in learning maths and science to be problematic. In general, one should read many sources, and one should not depend on authority, but on logic and evidence.

 

[micromass]

Furthermore, I find the suggestion that there should be "sole sources" (using ZapperZ's own definition of "primary source")

That is not Zz's definition. He never said it was his definition.

and the argument from authority in learning maths and science to be problematic. In general, one should read many sources, and one should not depend on authority, but on logic and evidence.

Here's where you are wrong: authority is often a good thing! The crucial part is to know when to rely on authority.
Let me expand on this. What I do not mean is somebody reading a calculus book from a famous mathematician and encountering a theorem in there. Then he goes on and says "the theorem is true because this famous mathematician said so". This is a bad form of authority. The student learning calculus should indeed apply logic to understand and reason about the theorem himself.

What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao's book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).

Also, when you end up doing research, you will have to rely on authority multiple times. You simply do not have the time to check and investigate all the claims people make in papers. This is simply the way research is. Students such know which authority to trust and which not. Students should learn when a certain claim is suspicious, and when they can comfortably cite it. This is a crucial part of being a scientist.

 

[atyy]

That is not Zz's definition. He never said it was his definition.

That's his definition in post #14.

Here's where you are wrong: authority is often a good thing! The crucial part is to know when to rely on authority.
Let me expand on this. What I do not mean is somebody reading a calculus book from a famous mathematician and encountering a theorem in there. Then he goes on and says "the theorem is true because this famous mathematician said so". This is a bad form of authority. The student learning calculus should indeed apply logic to understand and reason about the theorem himself.

What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao's book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).

Also, when you end up doing research, you will have to rely on authority multiple times. You simply do not have the time to check and investigate all the claims people make in papers. This is simply the way research is. Students such know which authority to trust and which not. Students should learn when a certain claim is suspicious, and when they can comfortably cite it. This is a crucial part of being a scientist.

Sure, authority is valuable. But that does not make authority inerrant, nor does it mean that amateur contributions are not valuable. This this is not sufficient argument against the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia.

 

[micromass]

That's his definition in post #14.

I do not see any definition in post #14. I see Zz giving an example of what it means to use a primary source. In that example, the source happened to be an only source. You have incorrectly deduced that primary source = only source.

Sure, authority is valuable. But that does not make authority inerrant, nor does it mean that amateur contributions are not valuable. This this is not sufficient argument against the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia.

So you would support a physics professor saying to his students: "we will not use a book for this course, we will rely mainly on wikipedia and my lectures. So for the exam, just study the relevant wikipedia articles." ? Or would you support a physics professor who says "We will use Tao's analysis book for this course. For the exam, just study his book."?
Which one do you prefer and why?

 

[atyy]

What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao's book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).

I replied to this above, but let me stress what I think is wrong here. If you are trying to be an an expert in analysis, then you read Tao's book? Is Wikipedia intended to be on the level of Tao's book. No. It is like criticizing a harmony textbook for not being a Beethoven symphony.

 

[micromass]

I replied to this above, but let me stress what I think is wrong here. If you are trying to be an an expert in analysis, then you read Tao's book? Is Wikipedia intended to be on the level of Tao's book. No. It is like criticizing a harmony textbook for not being a Beethoven symphony.

Everything that you can find in Tao's book is something you can find on wikipedia. So why would you read Tao's book instead of wikipedia?

 

[atyy]

Everything that you can find in Tao's book is something you can find on wikipedia. So why would you read Tao's book instead of wikipedia?

That's for you to argue. My point is that Wikipedia is valuable.

 

[micromass]

That's for you to argue. My point is that Wikipedia is valuable.

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

 

[atyy]

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

No, I am not. I am arguing that against his point that there is a problem with Wikipedia's "whole philosophy". My point is that Wikipedia's whole philosophy is in agreement that Wikipedia is not a primary source.

 

[micromass]

Alright, so you agree that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. And you agree that there are crucial benefits in actual science books that are not in wikipedia. So I don't get why you are arguing then.

 

[atyy]

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

Also, you do not make it clear here what "primary source" means. What if I look at Wikipeda first, then study Tao's book? Given all the non-standard definitions in this thread, why wouldn't one call Tao's book a primary source and Wikipedia the secondary source?

 

[atyy]

Alright, so you agree that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. And you agree that there are crucial benefits in actual science books that are not in wikipedia. So I don't get why you are arguing then.

Because that itself may be Wikipedia's philosophy - that it be used as a secondary source. So it would be wrong to impugn a "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" when one might actually agree with it.

 

[Drakkith]

Because that itself may be Wikipedia's philosophy - that it be used as a secondary source. So it would be wrong to impugn a "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" when one might actually agree with it.

To be honest, I'm also a little confused by what Zz means by "Whole Philosophy".

@ZapperZ , obviously you disagree with using wikipedia as a primary source, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. But when you say that you disagree with their whole philosophy do you mean that you think wikipedia's core principles should be abandoned because they simply don't work to make the site a useful source of secondary information? I assume you're not saying that wikipedia's whole philosophy tries to make it a primary source of information, but rather that people use it as a primary source when they shouldn't. Is that correct?

 

[ZapperZ]

To be honest, I'm also a little confused by what Zz means by "Whole Philosophy".

@ZapperZ , obviously you disagree with using wikipedia as a primary source, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. But when you say that you disagree with their whole philosophy do you mean that you think wikipedia's core principles should be abandoned because they simply don't work to make the site a useful source of secondary information? I assume you're not saying that wikipedia's whole philosophy tries to make it a primary source of information, but rather that people use it as a primary source when they shouldn't. Is that correct?

Correct.

I don't have as strong of an objection when people use it as a starting point (and I don't mean as a "primary" source), and then go get more information elsewhere (i.e. using Wikipedia as you call it as secondary source). This is because while it is convenient, I do not consider it to be trustworthy because of its basic premise and philosophy on how it operates.

I've been here long enough to have encountered people whose whole "world of science" is nothing but Wikipedia! And when someone tries to argue with you by citing a faulty Wikipedia entry more than once, you get VERY tired at not only trying to correct this person's wrong ideas, but also trying to explain why that Wikipedia entry is wrong! We shouldn't have to do double work because of that.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't have as strong of an objection when people use it as a starting point (and I don't mean as a "primary" source), and then go get more information elsewhere (i.e. using Wikipedia as you call it as secondary source). This is because while it is convenient, I do not consider it to be trustworthy because of its basic premise and philosophy on how it operates.

Okay. Your statement in the insights article had me scratching my head a bit.

 

[mathwonk]

For some reason, this reminds me of a class I taught some years back when a student objected to my correction of their erroneous homework problem solution by stating they had copied their answer from an online answer book for our text.
Four things about this totally blew my mind: 1) they had used an answer book instead of doing the work themselves; 2) they did not trust me to have done the work myself and gotten it right; 3) they had the nerve to admit they had cheated on the work; 4) some grad student had gone to the trouble of writing and publishing a book answering questions they had not troubled to get right... I made another check mark in the "I'm too old for this" category, and inched closer to retirement.

 

[atyy]

For some reason, this reminds me of a class I taught some years back on complex analysis when a student objected to my correction of their erroneous homework problem solution by stating they had copied their answer from an online answer book for our text.
Four things about this totally blew my mind: 1) they had used an answer book instead of doing the work themselves; 2) they did not trust me to have done the work myself and gotten it right; 3) they had the nerve to admit they had cheated on the work; 4) some grad student had gone to the trouble of writing and publishing a book answering questions they had not troubled to get right... I made another check mark in the "I'm too old for this" category, and inched closer to retirement.

I once objected to my lecturer in genetics that his answer was wrong. He told me he thought it was right, because he had copied it out of a book!

 

[mathwonk]

So don't let us slide down that greasy pole ZapperZ and I are worried about. As some of us who have scholarly standards retire and die out, (no matter how modest our own gifts), keep the flame of vigilance burning! Do your best, and Godspeed.

 

[atyy]

Well, to be fair to the lecturer, he did correct himself the next lecture. He was a world class yeast geneticist, but the portion he messed up on was population genetics.

A number of years later, I had to teach freshman physics to a very, very small class, which I imagined should be no problem. But for some reason, I'd never done fluid mechanics properly, and spent I think a whole weekend or much more sweating to understand the chapter in Young (standard freshman text).

 

[Evo]

So don't let us slide down that greasy pole ZapperZ and I are worried about. As some of us who have scholarly standards retire and die out, (no matter how modest our own gifts), keep the flame of vigilance burning! Do your best, and Godspeed.

Yes, atyy is wrong. Zz is correct that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source and that it should be understood that what wikipedia says today can be changed tomorrow. You never know what version of something you are looking at, is it correct, was it correct? As a starting point to begin researching something , it's ok, but it should not be used as a primary correct source. This is what Zz, I believe, is trying to get across, but atyy doesn't seem to get.

A printed encyclopdia can have errors, but the errors can be pointed out and the printed version can't be altered, so the corrections stand. This is not true of wikipedia where the entries can be changed daily, most users don't know that they can look at the history of changes, much less know which changes are correct.

 

[atyy]

Yes, atyy is wrong. Zz is correct that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source and that it should be understood that what wikipedia says today can be changed tomorrow. You never know what version of something you are looking at, is it correct, was it correct? As a starting point to begin reasearching something , it's ok, but it should not be used as a primary correct source. This is what Zz, I believe, is trying to get across, but atyy doesn't seem to get.

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

 

[micromass]

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

Yes, because Zz referred to the "whole philosophy" of wikipedia with respect to primary resources. There are other things wrong with the philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread IS about wikipedia as primary resource.

 

[Evo]

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

You are grossly misrepresenting what Zz said.

He said

Please note that, as I stated, and has been pointed out by several members, I'm criticizing the use of Wikipedia as the PRIMARY source of information. Stay in this forum for a while, and you'll find people using it as not only a primary source, but also as a learning material, as if this is a well-thought out textbook! This is what I am criticizing!

 

[atyy]

Yes, because Zz referred to the "whole philosophy" of wikipedia with respect to primary resources. There are other things wrong with the philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread IS about wikipedia as primary resource.

The alternative reading, quite plausible is that he disagrees with the whole philosophy of Wikipedia, and that the misuse by some is only part of his disagreement.

If you read the quote by Evo in the post above, this is borne out by the use of "especially".

Furthermore, the sentence with "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" is separate, and the term has every single letter in capitals.

 

[micromass]

Yes, he disagrees with the whole philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread is about wikipedia as a primary resource.

 

[atyy]

Yes, he disagrees with the whole philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread is about wikipedia as a primary resource.

But to disagree with the whole philosophy of Wikipedia is nonetheless a claim made in the post, and it is the biggest claim of the post.

There would be no debate if he just said, "Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source" (pure common sense).

 

[ShayanJ]

I'm confused by the emphasis on wikipedia. I agree that it can be annoying that you have to correct misconceptions caused by wikipedia from time to time. But is it just wikipedia that can cause misconceptions? No! Most of the misconceptions that people deal with here come from popularizations. People read a popular science article or watch a documentary, and they think they understand the subject and come here to argue with grad students and professors. I'm really confused that I don't see anything like this insight post about popular science articles while its really a routine thing here to explain to people that they can't learn science relying only on popularizations.
I rally don't think the problem is with the popular science articles/documentaries and wikipedia, the real problem is with people and how they think they can become an expert in the field using wikipedia and popular science articles/documentaries.
To me, it seems that there is a toolbox in front of us for learning science: Textbooks, popular books, popular articles, popular documentaries, lecture videos from universities, our own university classes, lecture notes,... and wikipedia! Its people's job to use the right tool for their job. Its really irrational to blame a screwdriver because you want to saw wood with it and you can't!
I'm definitely with atyy here. But it doesn't mean I don't agree with ZapperZ. I just want to say that instead of blaming wikipedia or popular science articles/documentaries, we should have insight articles explaining each of the tools in the learning toolbox are good for which level of learning.