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
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the limitations of using Wikipedia as a primary source of information. Participants emphasize that while Wikipedia can provide a useful introduction to topics, it lacks the rigor and reliability of peer-reviewed journals and academic texts. Key points include the potential for amateur errors in Wikipedia entries and the importance of critical thinking when using it as a reference. Contributors advocate for using Wikipedia as a secondary source to guide further research rather than as a standalone resource for in-depth learning.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of primary vs. secondary sources in research
  • Familiarity with peer-reviewed journals and academic literature
  • Critical thinking skills for evaluating sources
  • Basic knowledge of the open-source philosophy and collaborative editing
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the differences between primary and secondary sources in academic writing
  • Explore the role of peer-reviewed journals in scientific communication
  • Learn about the editorial processes of Wikipedia and its reliability metrics
  • Investigate alternative encyclopedic resources, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica
USEFUL FOR

Students, researchers, educators, and anyone seeking to understand the nuances of information sourcing and the reliability of online resources.

  • #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