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

  • Context: Insights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Source Wikipedia
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of Wikipedia as a source of information, particularly in the context of academic and scientific research. Participants explore its strengths and weaknesses, debating its reliability compared to traditional academic sources such as peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants appreciate Wikipedia for providing intuitive introductions to complex topics, suggesting it can serve as a useful starting point before delving into more rigorous literature.
  • Others argue that Wikipedia is not suitable for deep learning of technical subjects and emphasize the importance of relying on peer-reviewed journals and academic texts for serious study.
  • A participant compares Wikipedia to the French Encyclopédie, suggesting both aim to democratize knowledge and empower individuals, though the effectiveness of Wikipedia in this regard is questioned.
  • Some contributors note that Wikipedia can be a good source of references, helping users find keywords that lead to more authoritative sources.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of Wikipedia due to the potential for amateur contributions and the presence of errors, which some participants believe are not as prevalent in traditional textbooks.
  • A participant challenges the notion of Wikipedia's philosophy, questioning its validity as a primary source and drawing parallels with the Encyclopaedia Britannica regarding errors.
  • There is a call for clarity on what constitutes the "whole philosophy" of Wikipedia, indicating a desire for a deeper understanding of its foundational principles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on Wikipedia's utility, with some advocating for its use as a secondary source while others firmly oppose its use as a primary source. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall reliability and philosophy of Wikipedia.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the variability in the quality of information on Wikipedia and the potential for errors, particularly in comparison to traditional academic sources. There is also mention of the evolving nature of Wikipedia's editing policies and the implications for its reliability.

  • #91
atyy said:
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).
There is no debate then because as you said He said
ZapperZ 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!
So you agree that you were mistaken and there is no contention.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Evo said:
There is no debate then because as you said He said

Then the question is whether this is clear in the initial post. Did he write what he meant?
 
  • #93
atyy said:
Then the question is whether this is clear in the initial post. Did he write what he meant?
His Op said
I think that there’s a fundamental flaw with the whole concept and philosophy of it. While I think that it may be useful to many who need a quick lookup for something, it is unfortunate that even more are using it almost as their primary source of information. And this is scary considering that (i) the validity of the information being presented is never guaranteed and (ii) the pedagogical presentation of the material is often shoddy, making the subject even more confusing.

I think he's pretty clear.
 
  • #94
This is ridiculous. Thread locked pending possible moderation.
 
  • #95
This discussion is literally going nowhere. Zz admittedly has a problem with wikipedia's philosophy, which may or may not have needed to go into the insights article, but the argument over what Zz meant has been going on for 5 pages now, even after Zz and I clarified what he meant in post 76 and 77. I don't feel like any meaningful discussion can take place after 5 pages of this going nowhere. Thread locked.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: martinbn and Bystander

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K