The dependence on wikipedia

Feb 2019
846
Serbia
Three sources, even if they are biased?
That depends on what you're doing and what you want to achieve. If you're an academic it should be more than 3 and the sources should ideally be as objective as possible. It's up to you as a historian to correct the biases if there are any.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,961
Sydney
All sources can be taken as "biased" , they very often are , explicitly
the trick is to have sources which are not biased the same way
but three arrows pointing toward the same point can give one a good estimate of what really happened
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,014
Italy, Lago Maggiore
To take this seriously, don't think that Academia.edu or similar sites can give you the certainty of the value of the sources. Papers on Academia.edu are not peer reviewed and about Egyptology I've personally noted something really odd [with other members of Historum as well].

Anyway, the real problem about Wiki is the action of the moderating team. They are not paid and they rely on their personal knowledge and expertise. This means that in case of doubt they tend to add a note saying "personal research" [simply because they are not able to evaluate the posted content]. They tend to prefer authors who make reference to published works as sources.

But here comes an other problem: any published work. At Wiki they are not in condition to evaluate what a Japanese extremist publishes or what a politically oriented editor publishes in Australia.

Keep in mind that the presence of sources on Wiki doesn't mean to be scientifically accurate, it can mean exactly the contrary.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,014
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Anyway, to give an operative suggestion: nowadays on the net there are archives containing original works on line [like archive.org]. So that you can cross over Wiki or similar sites and read directly the mentioned sources. When I post an "article" [a page] on Wiki I usually post the links to the documents stored in those sites [usually archive.org] to allow the readers to check directly the context and the background of the Wiki page.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
All sources can be taken as "biased" , they very often are , explicitly
the trick is to have sources which are not biased the same way
but three arrows pointing toward the same point can give one a good estimate of what really happened
That's a reason why i to a degree dislike wikipedia. It cherry picks.
 
Apr 2014
224
Liverpool, England
It's all very well talking about using at least three sources, but sometimes there just aren't that many to be had. And my impression is that professional historians dealing with subjects like ancient history, where sources can be very thin on the ground, delight in demonstrating (to their own satisfaction at least) that these are hopelessly unreliable and preferably mean the opposite of what they say..
 
Jul 2017
237
Neverland
Wikipedia is only a quick reference and useful guide as opposed to books on a particular subject listed on the bottom of every Wiki article.
Wanna read more ? Visit the library and read the books on the section- References of Wiki.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
To take this seriously, don't think that Academia.edu or similar sites can give you the certainty of the value of the sources. Papers on Academia.edu are not peer reviewed and about Egyptology I've personally noted something really odd [with other members of Historum as well].

Anyway, the real problem about Wiki is the action of the moderating team. They are not paid and they rely on their personal knowledge and expertise. This means that in case of doubt they tend to add a note saying "personal research" [simply because they are not able to evaluate the posted content]. They tend to prefer authors who make reference to published works as sources.

But here comes an other problem: any published work. At Wiki they are not in condition to evaluate what a Japanese extremist publishes or what a politically oriented editor publishes in Australia.

Keep in mind that the presence of sources on Wiki doesn't mean to be scientifically accurate, it can mean exactly the contrary.
I'm more than aware that history articles on wikipedia change as the politics changes. That's what I've been noticing in the case of macedonian history.
 
Aug 2019
218
North
Wikipedia is only a quick reference and useful guide as opposed to books on a particular subject listed on the bottom of every Wiki article.
Wanna read more ? Visit the library and read the books on the section- References of Wiki.
History wikipedia is a political opinion maker.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,726
SoCal
I think we historians shouldn't rely so much on wikipedia. What say you?
I would highly advise you to check the sources that are cited on Wikipedia. If they are good ones, they you can trust Wikipedia; otherwise, though, you can look for better sources. AFAIK, Wikipedia generally does try to provide good sources for its articles--and it's especially good when every sentence on Wikipedia has a specific source cited for the information in it.