However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source. This can be avoided by following two simple rules: Do your research assignment properly.
Fogg implores us to be skeptical of our sources, and be aware that each outlet has its own agenda. It seems that the cultural and social capital of traditional print and television institutions have allowed them credibility online, such as the BBC or The Guardian, but solely online sources struggle to both construct and maintain credibility.
In the student context, it encourages and reinforces the importance of independent research and fact checking. Whilst it is disheartening that there is the deliberate spread of misinformation, as well as wrong information going uncorrected, it serves to remind the academic to be constantly critical of all information and ultimately makes for better graduates.
An online source that is created by user-generated content, Wikipedia is compiled from billions of entries from millions of contributors. As it is a dynamic structure, it evolves and is updated continuously, therefore it is difficult to verify the accuracy of everything that is online at any one time.
Even if only a minute fraction of Wikipedia is inaccurate, it undermines the credibility of every other piece of information. The source is either entirely accurate or not at all.
This is not to say that there is no place for Wikipedia within academia; it provides a vital resource in its own right, functioning as a signpost to verified and peer-reviewed sources, as well as giving brief and digestible overviews on the topic.
Most Wikipedia pages are heavily referenced and scrutinised by moderators and contributors, functioning effectively as a self-governing body. To their credit, incorrect or salacious entries are hastily removed, but, again, either it is entirely accurate all of the time, or it never is.
Perhaps what Wikipedia needs most is a change in its perception from an online encyclopedia to what it is, a summary of topics with their recommended readings and a starting point for mainstream research.May 24, · the credibility of wikipedia Wikipedia is often disregarded by academics as a reliable reference, primarily because of its collaborative nature.
An online source that is created by user-generated content, Wikipedia is compiled from billions of entries from millions of contributors. What Wikipedia Lost: Credibility December 27, / Dave Taylor / Strategic News / 24 Comments I sporadically teach courses for the University of Phoenix to keep my hand in the world of education and, well, because I love teaching, and while grading some disappointingly mediocre final assignments over the weekend, I came across citation after.
When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia").
That page contains a. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is .
The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance.
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is .