<p>Since wikipedia is fluid, dynamic and, of course, not peer reviewed, this does mean that quite often the article I might cite for my paper today may not be the same article that you read yesterday or may read tomorrow or next week. So, this poses another academic hoop - how does one correctly use it as an authoritative first line source - is it necessary to cite the wikimedia recent changes page as well?</p>
<p>Here is everything you need to know about Middlebury:</p>
<p>I used to be very skeptical of Wikiwiki, but then someone told a story about intentionally posting false info several times and it was corrected within hours. I still think it is a lazy man's (or women's) source and shouldn't be allowed as a reference by students. Use it, then find the same info elsewhere.</p>
<p>asteriskea:</p>
<p>The fluid, dynamic nature of wikipedia entries is one source of concern, as I stated in my earliest posts. It is not, however, limited to wikipedia. There has been an explosion of academic journals that are published online only. I know that concern has been expressed about the authors' frequent revisions of their articles (sometimes in response to online critiques), so that citing them is problematic. I don't have an answer to that. Still, there is something attractive about authors who are willing and able to correct their mistakes right away rather than let them stand. I've known book reviewers who devoted their entire reviews to pointing out mistakes in books, some quite trivial, to the exclusion of anything else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if the august professors at Middlebury (and their ilk) can't teach their students to write, they have no standing for using Wiki as their whipping post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. If the problem of lazy, superficial research is widespread, there are problems on many levels: admissions, campus culture, quality of teaching, etc.</p>
<p>For example, it is possible to ask essay questions that cannot be answered from Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Interesteddad:</p>
<p>Essay questions, yes. But research papers? This is where students head for wikipedia.</p>
<p>i really am shocked that middlebury had to go ahead and say "you can't use wikipedia as a cited source." I havn't been able to cite an encyclopedia since 9th grade...and for what its worth why would you want to? If you're writing a 10 page paper, how much info can you really get from an encyclopedia - with that in mind, don't professors usually stipulate you need at least X sources? They do at UVa. And on that note, most professors don't allow you to use the internet period for sources.</p>
<p>however, i will say, wikipedia is a great way to study for history tests and the like without having to hunt through books and indexes and glossaries for definitions. the fact is, it is accurate on "real" articles (not the Lindsay Lohan, Xbox 360, Kevin Fedderline type articles). Sometimes common sense has to tell you that people arn't just sitting around waiting to vandalize the articles "Lucius Sulla" or "Geryeo Dynasty"</p>
<p>And I am suggesting that, measuring the tradeoffs between old, outdated, poorly footnoted, or just manufactured research (i.e. the New York Times and Judith Miller), and the possibility of fluid, dynamic source material on Wikipedia, students often might be signficantly better served using the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know that concern has been expressed about the authors' frequent revisions of their articles (sometimes in response to online critiques), so that citing them is problematic. I don't have an answer to that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only solution I know for that is to include the date the website was visited or the online article was viewed. Basically the same as giving the publishing date, only it's more of an ongoing process.</p>
<p>nceph:</p>
<p>Agreed. The downside is that the text is constantly shifting, so that discussants find themselves discussing quite different texts sometimes. But that can also be an advantage, insofar as mistakes are not allowed to stand.</p>
<p>The Judith Miller case is a good example. How many students will, upon reading her original articles, know that they have been subject to intense challenges? Newspaper articles, by the way, qualify as primary sources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find Wikipedia to be extremely helpful and valuable as a tool. One always has to take it with a grain of salt, and to pay close attention to indications that this or that paragraph may be someone's private axe to grind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My high school son (who doesn't quote Wikipedia, but certainly uses it), says it's helpful to look at the history and discussion tabs. I've found the site to be very accurate for old history and popular culture and very weird when you stumble on something like a citation for a local high school. (All I was looking for was the address!)</p>
<p>JHS :</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I think "everyone knows" that there's a significant positive correlation between family income and SAT scores.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I have seen that data avout income corelation. But how on earth, a low income white/asian student score better than a higher income URM, that does not make sense to me. Is that data vaild or just someone created a wrong graph. That is what puzzles me more than anything.</p>
<p>I'm with marite and JHS. Colleges at Middlebury's level should be teaching students how to evaluate sources. Not only are there articles in Wikipedia that represent the latest state of research, there was a study in "Nature" suggesting that Wikipedia was as accuratge as print sources for much info in the natural sciences. (I'll see if I can find a citation to the study that's not on the web :-)</p>
<p>The SAT graph worked fine for me. I've seen it somewhere not on line. Maybe in The Big Test?</p>
<p>Scouting around online I think this might be Wiki's source: <a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm</a></p>
<p>Basic advice for using electronic sources obviously hold double for wikipedia -it is always a good practice to make personal copies of electronic information to keep for future reference. </p>
<p>The following advice on the subject is from the Williams College Libraries:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should I Cite Wikipedia? Probably not.</p>
<p>Should you use and cite Wikipedia as a source for an academic paper? The answer depends on your research topic. Wikipedia may be useful as a primary source on popular culture, or for subjects that have not been addressed in the scholarly literature. For more academic topics, however, it cannot compete with the library's specialized encyclopedias and online resources.</p>
<p>Consider researching a topic like "postmodernism" for an English paper. The Wikipedia entry on postmodernism seems fairly well written and ends with an extensive bibliography. But compare this to the entry on postmodernism in The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism, Second Edition (2004). Rather than a generalist article on the subject, it is a critique of postmodernism that places it squarely within a literary context. The bibliography is more focused as well; of the 21 scholarly works listed, only three appear in the Wikipedia entry as of this writing.</p>
<p>Unlike Wikipedia, the articles in The Johns Hopkins Guide and similar academic reference sources are signed. The postmodernism article was written by John McGowan, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina. He is an editor of the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism and the author of Postmodernism and its Critics. A search in the library's article databases returns an article in The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association which contrasts his analysis of postmodernism with those of other scholars. This network of scholarly discourse allows you to interrogate the author's point of view in a way that is not possible with Wikipedia. Furthermore, by following the threads of citation from one work to another, you can build an understanding of your subject.</p>
<p>Articles in Wikipedia may be well written and insightful, but they are not embedded in the world of scholarly discourse. Without knowing who wrote the article, it is more difficult to judge whether the author's writing is worthy of consideration, or to critique his or her motivations or qualifications. Without a known author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative.</p>
<p>Popular Culture
When using Wikipedia as a primary source on popular culture, cite it and analyze it accordingly.</p>
<p>For studies of popular culture, Wikipedia and other websites may provide useful material, but they should be treated with healthy skepticism. Suppose you are researching a topic like "reggaeton." As a relatively recent pop music phenomenon, there is very little scholarly literature on the subject. In this case, you might turn to the popular press for background information, and to websites discussing reggaeton. Wikipedia is not the authority on the subject, but just one voice among many on the web. As such, it should be read as a primary source and evaluated accordingly.</p>
<p>The references in Wikipedia to other resources such as news articles can be helpful, but these should be verified. For example, if Wikipedia cites an article on reggaeton in the New York Times, you should use the library's ProQuest subscription to find and read the article for yourself. In cases like this, Wikipedia and its references can provide basic information, but you must provide the scholarly analysis.</p>
<p>General Knowledge
For general knowledge, use an academic source. You don't have to cite, but you do have to get it right.</p>
<p>General knowledge, such as names and dates, doesn't need to be cited, but it does need to be correct. As described above, Wikipedia is useful but not authoritative, so it's a good idea to verify information you find there in an academic reference source such as xrefer or Oxford Reference Online. You can find the same information as you did in Wikipedia, plus references to other scholarly works that will help with your research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>asteriskea:</p>
<p>This is a very thoughtful set of guidelines. Much better than the sweeping ban enacted by Middlebury.</p>
<p>Just to make things a bit more interesting here is what Yale Writing Center has to say to students on the how and why of the to cite or not to cite wiki question:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wikipedia</p>
<pre><code>MLA:
“King Arthur.” Wikipedia. 26 July 2006. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur>.
[“page title.”] [date of access.] [<URL>]
APA:
King Arthur. Wikipedia. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
[page title.] [Retrieved date, from: URL]
Chicago:
26. “King Arthur.”
[fn. #.] [“title.”]
[Shortened Chicago reference; see More Notes on Chicago Style for more information.]
[Note: In the Bibliography, Chicago style does not generally include date of access.]
</code></pre>
<p>To list material from Wikipedia, you should review the advice for organization websites. But Wikipedia merits additional attention because of its recent growth and popularity. Some professors will warn you not to use Wikipedia because they believe its information is unreliable. As a community project with no central review committee, Wikipedia certainly contains its share of incorrect information and uninformed opinion. And since it presents itself as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can sometimes seem more trustworthy than the average website, even to writers who would be duly careful about private websites or topic websites. In this sense, it should be treated as a popular rather than scholarly source. See Popular vs. Scholarly Sources for more information.</p>
<p>But the main problem with using Wikipedia as an important source in your research is not that it gets things wrong. Some of its contributors are leaders in their fields, and, besides, some print sources contain errors. The problem, instead, is that Wikipedia strives for a lower level of expertise than professors expect from Yale students. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written for a common readership. But students in Yale courses are already consulting primary materials and learning from experts in the discipline. In this context, to rely on Wikipedia—even when the material is accurate—is to position your work as inexpert and immature.</p>
<p>If you use Wikipedia for general background, check several other sources before using the material in your essays. Some of the facts you find may be attributable to common knowledge (see Common Knowledge for more discussion). You may also be able to track opinions or deeper ideas back to their original sources. In many cases, your course readings will contain similar ideas in better, more quotable language. Many student writers are tempted to use Wikipedia for definitions of terms (the same way a beginning writer might quote a dictionary). But in most cases, a definition drawn or paraphrased from the primary course readings—or from other scholarly sources—will be more effective. See Why Cite? for more discussion of definitions and keyterms.</p>
<p>Of course, if you do use language or information from Wikipedia, you must cite it—to do otherwise constitutes plagiarism. The advice here is not to hide what Wikipedia contributes to your ideas, but rather to move beyond Wikipedia and write from a more knowledgeable, expert stance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it depends on the item. I've looked up some admittedly obscure topics and found the research to be quite thorough, clearly footnoted and sourced. I've appreciated links to more pages as well.</p>
<p>The pop culture though with healthy skepticism exception seems reasonable. I'm not sure it can be compared with the Middlebury history department's policy, though. Probably not too much need in that department for "reggaeton."</p>
<p>I like the Yale take concerning the fact that it's a general encyclopedia, which is the point I was trying to convey.</p>
<p>Yes, but I think the "Yale take" is a misreading of Wikipedia. </p>
<p>Britannica, or World Book (does it still exist?), has a general editor aiming for a consistent tone and detail-level across all articles. There is an ideal reader, or set of readers, in mind -- a target market -- and the material is shaped to fit that market's preferences. Furthermore, at least in the print world, there is a constant economic tradeoff between length and cost; someone is always deciding whether additional information adds recoverable economic value. And contributors are paid, which raises the cost of additional information and, frankly, may lead to mediocrity as a cost-control strategy.</p>
<p>Wikipedia does not limit the information provided, especially given its limitless ability to carve sub-topics off into separate articles. The community interested in a particular article determines its tone and depth -- so there is a lot of variation, but no one is enforcing a 10th grade comprehension standard. Authors are volunteers, and each page may have multiple contributors. So some things have a poor pedigree, and others an excellent one. It isn't always easy to tell which is which as to particular statements. But over time the quality of information in an article ought to be improving, at least if decent scholars are watchdogging it. Sometimes that is the case, and sometimes not, but you can often tell fairly easily if there is this kind of peer review going on, and also if the statement you are relying on has survived it.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is far, far from perfect -- I agree with most of the limitations suggested. But it is much closer to Diderot's vision of an ideal encyclopedia than it is to a telemarketer's vision of an ideal encyclopedia. At least parts of it are. That's what makes it so interesting.</p>
<p>JHS is correct about the limitations imposed by print encyclopedias (not to mention the incredibly low rate of pay per word offered to would-be authors).</p>