<p>Yeah, you don’t need Wikipedia as a source. Chances are, if the information is good, you can use Wikipedia for that information but actually cite the sources that Wikipedia uses to make sure that they synch up. Actually investigate though, since Wikipedia sometimes has broken links. And in some controversial articles, WIkipedia’s internal politics can force its editors to present a misleading or uncommon perspective on an issue that would stand out as inaccurate to someone who actually teaches the subject at a college.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sure, why not? How else do you avoid ever setting foot in a library and still get tenure?</p>
<p>I had a Political Science teacher who not only allowed us to use Wiki as a source for our term paper, but encouraged it.</p>
<p>OTOH, I’d say about 95% of my professors will not allow it. But they don’t allow any other form of encyclopedia either…and many of them don’t even accept textbooks (ie if we’re writing a paper for a Psych class, our Psych textbook cannot be one of our sources).</p>
<p>To wiki or not is a subset of a much bigger question. I always encourage people to be skeptical about their sources, especially internet sources. People seem to follow the adage: I read it on the internet therefore it must be true. If you can’t answer simple questions like where did this info come from, who is the author, what might their motivation be, etc, then don’t use it, and don’t take it as gospel truth.</p>
<p>A lot of people don’t really seem to understand there is an entire bureaucracy behind Wikipedia, to the extent that random people start crying “OMG Wikipedia is run by a conservative CABAL, OH NOES take a stand against THE MACHINE” when we delete an article they started.</p>
<p>S1 says that math and comp sci entries on Wikipedia tend to be very accurate and helpful.</p>
<p>S2, as other posters have mentioned, will start his research with Googling and Wikipedi, then pursue the sources he finds from there. If a few books/articles keep coming up on short lists for a specific topic, he investigates those further.</p>
<p>The math entries are extremely variable in quality. They’re better than most encyclopedias would be, if only because they cover so many more topics and they’re not often truly inaccurate but they tend to be poorly written, incomplete and glide over difficulties a student should understand. (I’ve not read all of them because there are so many, but the ones I know are so-so.) Good start, but I can’t imagine how one would use a wikipedia article in a math class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be Conservapedia? The one that includes the line “Barack Obama is likely the first Muslim president” in Barack’s article?</p>
<p>conservative == intellectually conservative, not politically conservative </p>
<p>Political conservatives in the US would be considered radicals in Europe</p>
<p>Wikiepdia can be a great resource, especially when you want to quickly get up to speed on a new topic, but it not a credible academic source. </p>
<p>However, if the article is cited properly it can lead you to some acceptable resources that can be used as sources–once you’ve read the original material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I see. It’s the name of a real site too, though. </p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page]Conservapedia[/url”>http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page]Conservapedia[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Perhaps it’s a cautionary example of how unreliable something that accepts outside editing can be; on the other hand, it’s only by banning many people and accepting some really “out there” sources that Conservapedia ended up being what it is, whereas Wikipedia has much stricter guidelines about what is accepted. </p>
<p>(Before political conservatives here jump on me, go look up a few articles on that site. I think you’ll find that most of them make you go “???” and “O__o”.)</p>
<p>I have never heard of anyone (I’m a professor) in my circle thinking wiki is an acceptable or reliable source. Even my kids in HS are taught not to use it.</p>