Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I find that just a little bit snobbish. When properly sourced, Wiki articles can be a valuable tool, sometimes containing information not found in any other online source. Any online source can be tainted, and none are to be trusted fully. This also goes for many published books, which are also considered "not acceptable" by most true academics. If it isn't a primary source it can't be fully trusted, and even they should be cross-researched.
I agree that any online reference should not be used unless proper sources are cited, but that holds true for any website, not just Wikipedia.
|
Call it what you wish, Steve. I work in the education industry and Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source by the academic community. Likewise, I have personally seen enough plagiarism, insufficient sourcing, overreliance on individual sources and bias in enough wiki articles to utterly reject it as a viable tertiary source. If you feel it is snobbish, then I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it vehemently. However, the fact of the matter is that Academia rejects Wikipedia and I do not see that changing nor do I plan on jeopardizing the viability of any of my research by using their articles. For a quick reference or an informal brief, it is sufficient. For scholastic research, Encyclopedia Britannica it is
not.