Scholars to Stop Pretending They Don't Use Wikipedia

[Blossom]

Ah yes, I've been warned couple times during high school and college not to use Wikipedia for a serious research. :/

[Troll's Puzzle]

Wiki is a great resource that has revolutionalised knowlege IMO.

If the internet (and before it the same was said of TV and other media, before it turned out people were more interested in watching soaps) is a revolution in knowlege/information, then the 'revolution' didn't happen until Wiki made such vast swathes of information availible to anyone who can find an internet terminal.

I think some study showed it was as reliable as older style encyclopedias (britannica, etc) and IMO it's actually a lot better then them (real-time updates will do that )

[Austin]

Oh please no that's the last thing we need. A bunch of feminist theorist and critical race studies doctorates chiming in on Wikipedia after years of labeling it inaccurate and racist.

[Curtis24]

I find it a great resource as well. However, on some topics, scholars will inject their opinions, which can kind of screw you up with your own professor if you're writing a paper.

[Octothorpe]

Ah yes, I've been warned couple times during high school and college not to use Wikipedia for a serious research. :/

Well, like I tell my students, any fool with an internet connection can be a Wiki editor.

The problem with Wikipedia, from an academic/education view, is provenance. Just like with antiques, knowing where something comes from is often just as important as what it actually is. The writers and editors of old-fasioned academic papers are known actors--they most usually appear in various reference works, like "Who's Who in Academia," where you can discover such things as their background and awards, groups they belong to, and their previous publications--which can give you quite a good idea of what their biases are.

Wiki has its place, but it's the beginning of a good search--not the end point.