Feb 25 2009
Citing Wikipedia
I have a secret. Don’t tell my profs, tho I think one of my former ones reads this blog. If not him, his wife (Hi Mom!) does for sure.
I do most of my primary research on Wikipedia.
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with it in most cases. When I was doing a number of biochem classes, I used it for almost every lab. It was better explained and had nicer diagrams than my text book, and made more sense than most of my lab instructors. When dealing with scientific articles of little consequence to the public, odds are it’s accurate.
Lets look at my favourite mathematical concept - the Hairy Ball Theorem. Despite my basic knowledge of mathematics, I can get the gist of what is happening here!
Wikipedia also gives information on how to cite the article, just click on the “cite this page” on the right there! An important thing to note is that they include the date accessed. One major criticism of Wikipedia is that anyone can alter it. However, since all changes are saved (generally) a person can go back and access the page you were viewing.
But no, I never cite Wikipedia directly, but it is still a highly useful tool. Beyond its assistance in making me understand the sources I already have, it’s a great place to find sources! Looking a more general article - Plato’s Theory of Forms - we can see they have a long list of cites sources.
Obviously if you are going to quote the Wikipedia article directly, you will have to cite them. As well, be sure you actually take the time to check the sources yourself before blindly citing. Most profs will know when you’re BSing.
So, the age old (well, old) question.
Ask your prof before you do. Some profs have started allowing students to cite Wikipedia articles as long as they also have other sources to back them up. Way back when there were questions about citing websites as well, but now it’s common place. At this point, odds are they will say no and look at you funny for asking, but it is still an invaluable source of information.
- Zimbabwean opposition party withdraws from runoff elections, citing violence and the discovery of election-rigging plans
- McCain accused of plagiarising Wikipedia for Georgia speech
- Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia Entry Gets Scrubbed : NPR
- Wikipedia User? Read This…
- Cartoon-A-Thon by: Chato B. Stewart For Mental Health Month - Anxiety
Google and Wikipedia sure beat dusty little drawers full of little cards and the only search engine your fingers and paper/pencil.
Yes, me too. Purists turn up the nose, but I can find a good explanation in layman’s terms on just about any subject I need almost instantly - WITH SOURCES. And many things are so logically laid out. I was looking for all the space-related casualties and near misses ever. Wikipedia had that as an article, complete with links and many many citations. Where I work, Wikipedia citations are frowned on but I find it a very very useful tool and, when dealing with technical matters, quite accurate.
I would definitely paraphrase wikipedia and look at the sources they refer to… as to citing it in my articles and thesis… definitely a no-no :P Unless it’s a cutting-edge topic that no papers are touching on…
For my personal study and tutoring the students though, definitely! I’d tell them to google, to use wikipedia frequently and liberally, because just like you said Wikipedia makes more sense than the textbooks and *gasp* the lecturers that I tutor for sometimes :P
My professors never allowed me to cite Wikipedia, but I did have one who told me he encouraged all the students he served as thesis adviser for to put their theses up on Wikipedia when they were finished. I was one of the people he advised, though I never got around to it; the stuff I came up with was far too theoretical.
Cite the original source of the info. Wikipedia aims to be a secondary source and includes references at the bottom of the page.
I do a lot of primary research on Wikipedia - largely to find other sources and stories I can check and cite. It’s invaluable for that!