Arcana Heart

[Tails]

Why do you think I'm asking here DM? I'd trust word here more than Wiki, but it GIVES ME HOPE.

[Demon-Mask]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

You don't have to be so negative about wiki or it's contributors. Many people see it as a great resource and they volunteer their time to help out. What's bad about that? Don't believe all the crap you hear about wiki, it's awesome. Yes some minor stuff slips through the cracks but that happens in books and other media too. People are just critical of wiki because it's high profile.

I actually like wikipedia, I just don't understand why someone would spend so much time on maintaining the site. It is a good thing that they do, and they are often given less credit than they deserve. There are some things I do fact check if I read it on wikipedia though, high-school teachers drill the idea that "wikipedia is pure crap" into your brain from day one.

Just like tails, I'd fact check something that could potentially end in me spending money on something that is a lie.

Other than that, if it doesn't seem off, then chances are it isn't off. I go with it most of the time.

[Dudebro]

I just don't understand why someone would spend so much time on maintaining the site

Who says any one person spends long hours maintaining it? From my understanding a new edit will send an alert and one of the wiki editors will see it. It's not like they're constantly refreshing pages looking for alterations. That being said that's my assumption of how it works, someone like Kong would know more about it.

Also teachers that condemn wiki outright are just being morons. They should be telling students to double check sources if it's being used for something important, which you should be doing anyways with or without wikipedia. It sounds like your teachers are either lying to make their job easier some how or they are just ignorant.

[Kugyince]

Wiki itself is not a creditable source nor in it's current form could ever be a creditable source. It's only academic use is through the citation of other sources which are creditable.

[Dudebro]

Yeah but doesn't being a resource that contains credible sources make it credible? If a source is bad you just ignore it. It's not like it's conservapedia or creationwiki, those are just straight up made up and/or heavily bias.

[Kugyince]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Yeah but doesn't being a resource that contains credible sources make it credible?

No, it doesn't.

[Dudebro]

I can accept that but do you agree it's not something to be dismissed as useless for academic research? I don't know of any other resource that's so all encompassing and alive(constant updates and editing).

[Kugyince]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

I can accept that but do you agree it's not something to be dismissed as useless for academic research?

I don't think anyone's dismissing is outright. It certainly has it's uses. I think DM was overplaying it a bit.

[Demon-Mask]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Also teachers that condemn wiki outright are just being morons. They should be telling students to double check sources if it's being used for something important, which you should be doing anyways with or without wikipedia. It sounds like your teachers are either lying to make their job easier some how or they are just ignorant.

I know, just condemning something for the fact that it has the potential to be wrong, doesn't mean it is a bad source.
It has it's uses, and it normally cites where the information comes from, meaning you can always check the source of the information on there for it's credibility.
I do think the teachers are trying to make their jobs easier, because to check if wikipedia has correct information, you have to check a bunch of sources that are cited on the page.

[Kong]

Wikipedia has been proved to be more reliable than any other encyclopedia. If you can cite Britanica, then why not the more accurate, updated, thorough Wikipedia?

Answer, because the person doing the citing can also write the wikipedia article.

The Internet is the single greatest research tool ever invented. Search Engines are the best research tool on the Internet. Wikipedia is the second greatest.

But that is all it is, a great research tool. It is not an original source. You should use WP to find info, but do not cite it, find WP's source and cite that. Most WP articles list their sources so they do the work for you.

Your teachers are failing you if they tell you to not use or trust Wikipedia at all. Next time they tell you that ask if you can use the less reliable Britanica.