Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick ready reference, to get a sense of a concept or idea.
And as cathy davidson, professor of interdisciplinary studies at duke university, points out in we can't ignore the influence of digital technologies (chronicle of higher education, march 23, 2007), unlike comparable print sources, wikipedia errors can be corrected and often are in a matter of hours after publication. There has been much debate about the influence of online resources such as wikipedia in academic research wikipedia is considered to be a useful research tool by some, while others doubt its credibility even though wikipedia is a good information resource, its suitability as an academic source is currently doubtful due to concerns over the [. However, many sources are not suitable for use in wikipedia because they are not reliable this is a guideline about the types of sources which are reliable wikipedia articles should use reliable , third-party , published sources. Numerous studies have rated wikipedia's accuracy on the whole, the web encyclopedia is fairly reliable, but life's little mysteries own small investigation produced mixed results.
Sources accepted as reliable for wikipedia may in fact rely on wikipedia as a reference source, sometimes indirectly the danger is that if the original information in wikipedia was false, once it has been reported in sources considered reliable, wikipedia may use them to reference the false information, giving an apparent respectability to a falsehood.
Yes, if you use it for a reference rather than a resource like if you're doing a book report, you can use it as a reference for that, provided you have read the book first, so you can easily see information that is not right. The creators of wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers here are some points to consider: look for a slant some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the leaning tower of pisa if. Get an answer for 'why is wikipedia an unreliable sourcewhy is wikipedia an unreliable source' and find homework help for other reference questions at enotes.
Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material in december 2005, the scientific journal nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of wikipedia and the printed encyclopaedia britannica. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source of the information for number of reasons, the most important of which are anonymity and failure to introduce a system which would guarantee reliability. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Thus, wales and other senior wikipedia editors showed they were willing to rely on the “unreliable source” canard to delete information they had been told by a very reliable source was true, even when a more noble reason—rohde’s safety—would have justified it and finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on wikipedia: 1.
Is wikipedia a reliable source shahinaz 11 september 2014 there has been much debate about the influence of online resources such as wikipedia in academic research wikipedia is considered to be a useful research tool by some, while others doubt its credibility even though wikipedia is a good information resource, its suitability as an. If your source is a website, it may be great or it may be awful a wikipedia article may be as good as (or better than) an article assigned to you by your professor, or it may contain inaccurate information and.