The dependence on wikipedia

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,864
Blachernai
I don't know, at least in my field it's not worse than most of what's generally available to the reading public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius
Feb 2019
846
Serbia
I use Wikipedia as a quick memory-refresher on small details or to check a source for reliability. It's not a reliable source if you read raw articles and it's very basic, almost never going into any notable detail. If I wanted to write something extensive or learn about something I would read a book, however I wouldn't lose sleep if I turned to Wikipedia to check on which day the French army entered Vienna in 1805. Many, if not most, Wikipedia articles are poorly sourced and since anyone can edit them it turns into a compilation of various bits and pieces of information from many different sources. Since many editors either don't know how to properly source or critically examine their sources you can get some pretty strange claims and statistics on some articles.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
wikipedia is a cancer on truth's body, and that's not limited to historical issues only
Hi yani,
the truthfulness of wikipedia shouldw only be limited to the sciences, and not humanities. Especially not to history. History is to be well chewed.
 
Jun 2017
432
maine
It is usually among the first "hits" that come up so many people don't go beyond it. Any topic of research requires several independent sources (the traditional number is 3). Wikipedia has the advantage of, itself, being sourced. If you like its sources (and they check out), why not consider it as one of your own research sources? In my own field, it is not usually considered acceptable but, if one has done due diligence, I say--use it as one of your sources (but not as the only one).
 
Aug 2019
218
North
It is usually among the first "hits" that come up so many people don't go beyond it. Any topic of research requires several independent sources (the traditional number is 3). Wikipedia has the advantage of, itself, being sourced. If you like its sources (and they check out), why not consider it as one of your own research sources? In my own field, it is not usually considered acceptable but, if one has done due diligence, I say--use it as one of your sources (but not as the only one).
Three sources, even if they are biased?