Why You Should Not Use Wikipedia As Your Primary Source
It is no secret to anyone who has read my posts in this forum for a while that I do not like Wikipedia. I think that there’s a fundamental flaw with the whole concept and philosophy of it. While I think that it may be useful to many who need a quick lookup for something, it is unfortunate that even more are using it almost as their primary source of information. This is scary considering that (i) the validity of the information being presented is never guaranteed and (ii) the pedagogical presentation of the material is often shoddy, making the subject even more confusing.
I often get asked to look at such-and-such Wikipedia entries, or someone is trying to convince me of something and using a Wikipedia entry as a “reference” to back up his/her argument. It is usually during such instances that I find inaccuracies, confusing statements, and outright errors in such entries. I was doing my search on something a few minutes ago, and I decided, out of curiosity, to see what Wikipedia has to say about “Work Function”. Now, keep in mind that this is a common terminology, especially for physics students, since the photoelectric effect is a “must-know” topic for these students. One would think that this should be a topic that a Wikipedia entry would get it right, considering how many people would look up such a thing, AND, the fact that errors and inaccuracy would, by now, be ironed out.
WRONG!
This is what I first saw on the Wikipedia page on Oct. 8, and my last check today shows that it is still there.
I posted the date in the screen capture as a date stamp on when this was first viewed.
The offending passage has been highlighted with a red box. Let’s look at it closely, shall we?
The description here is on what happened for an insulator (or a semiconductor, for that matter). The figure shown is the simplified band diagram for such a system (i.e. an intrinsic semiconductor, for example), and defines the various quantities such as the work function, bandgap, electron affinity, etc. The problematic statement says this:
For an insulator, the Fermi level lies within the band gap, indicating an empty conduction band; in this case, the minimum energy to remove an electron is about the sum of half the band gap and the electron affinity.
The first part of that paragraph which says “…. For an insulator, the Fermi level lies within the bandgap, indicating an empty conduction band …” is OK. However, the second part is very puzzling and an outright error: “… in this case, the minimum energy to remove an electron is about the sum of half the bandgap and the electron affinity …”
Whoever wrote this is STILL thinking that the work function (Phi) is still the minimum energy needed to produce photoemission, as in the case of a metal. This is FALSE, and anyone who looks at the band diagram can tell. Half of the bandgap plus the electron affinity is the work function Phi, but this is the energy between the vacuum level and the Fermi level. The Fermi level for insulator/semiconductor has NO STATES, and thus, no electrons to excite! After all, it resides in the bandgap! So what is being excited here?
For an insulator/semiconductor, while the work function may still be defined as the energy between the Fermi level and the vacuum level, it no longer corresponds to the photoemission threshold! The photoemission threshold now is the full band gap energy PLUS the electron affinity. You need to excite, at the minimum, the electrons from the top of the valence band to the vacuum level. One can see this clearly by looking at the band diagram in the figure.
Now, you can tell me “But ZapperZ, why can’t you correct these errors, and provide a service to the community?” You will then have missed my point entirely. My problem isn’t with these errors. My problem is the WHOLE PHILOSOPHY of Wikipedia. I find that to be the fundamental flaw, that no one of any authority is being given the ability to write and edit stuff. The errors in the various entries are only the SYMPTOMS of the flawed philosophy. I could spend a lifetime correcting many of these errors (now why would I want to spend a lot of my time to do that in the first place, no one has given me a good reason), and it would not change a thing about my perception of Wikipedia.
If you don’t know the topic you are looking up, and you are using Wikipedia as your PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION, I would be very scared if I were you.
PhD Physics
Accelerator physics, photocathodes, field-enhancement. tunneling spectroscopy, superconductivity
Yes, he disagrees with the whole philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread is about wikipedia as a primary resource.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198275, member: 205308″]Yes, because Zz refered to the “whole philosophy” of wikipedia with respect to primary resources. There are other things wrong with the philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread IS about wikipedia as primary resource.[/QUOTE]
The alternative reading, quite plausible is that he disagrees with the whole philosophy of Wikipedia, and that the misuse by some is only part of his disagreement.
If you read the quote by Evo in the post above, this is borne out by the use of “especially”.
Furthermore, the sentence with “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” is separate, and the term has every single letter in capitals.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198271, member: 123698″]Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of Wikipedia is wrong?[/QUOTE]
You are grossly misrepresenting what Zz said.
He said [QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5197613, member: 6230″]Please note that, as I stated, and has been pointed out by several members, I’m criticizing the use of Wikipedia as the PRIMARY source of information. Stay in this forum for a while, and you’ll find people using it as not only a primary source, but also as a learning material, as if this is a well-thought out textbook! [B]This is what I am criticizing![/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198271, member: 123698″]Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of Wikipedia is wrong?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because Zz refered to the “whole philosophy” of wikipedia with respect to primary resources. There are other things wrong with the philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread IS about wikipedia as primary resource.
[QUOTE=”Evo, post: 5198267, member: 5155″]Yes, atyy is wrong. Zz is correct that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source and that it should be understood that what wikipedia says today can be changed tomorrow. You never know what version of something you are looking at, is it correct, was it correct? As a starting point to begin reasearching something , it’s ok, but it should not be used as a primary correct source. This is what Zz, I believe, is trying to get across, but atyy doesn’t seem to get.[/QUOTE]
Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of Wikipedia is wrong?
[QUOTE=”mathwonk, post: 5198244, member: 13785″]So don’t let us slide down that greasy pole ZapperZ and I are worried about. As some of us who have scholarly standards retire and die out, (no matter how modest our own gifts), keep the flame of vigilance burning! Do your best, and Godspeed.[/QUOTE]
Yes, atyy is wrong. Zz is correct that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source and that it should be understood that what wikipedia says today can be changed tomorrow. You never know what version of something you are looking at, is it correct, was it correct? As a starting point to begin researching something , it’s ok, but it should not be used as a primary correct source. This is what Zz, I believe, is trying to get across, but atyy doesn’t seem to get.
A printed encyclopdia can have errors, but the errors can be pointed out and the printed version can’t be altered, so the corrections stand. This is not true of wikipedia where the entries can be changed daily, most users don’t know that they can look at the history of changes, much less know which changes are correct.
Well, to be fair to the lecturer, he did correct himself the next lecture. He was a world class yeast geneticist, but the portion he messed up on was population genetics.
A number of years later, I had to teach freshman physics to a very, very small class, which I imagined should be no problem. But for some reason, I’d never done fluid mechanics properly, and spent I think a whole weekend or much more sweating to understand the chapter in Young (standard freshman text).
So don’t let us slide down that greasy pole ZapperZ and I are worried about. As some of us who have scholarly standards retire and die out, (no matter how modest our own gifts), keep the flame of vigilance burning! Do your best, and Godspeed.
[QUOTE=”mathwonk, post: 5198228, member: 13785″]For some reason, this reminds me of a class I taught some years back on complex analysis when a student objected to my correction of their erroneous homework problem solution by stating they had copied their answer from an online answer book for our text.
Four things about this totally blew my mind: 1) they had used an answer book instead of doing the work themselves; 2) they did not trust me to have done the work myself and gotten it right; 3) they had the nerve to admit they had cheated on the work; 4) some grad student had gone to the trouble of writing and publishing a book answering questions they had not troubled to get right…. I made another check mark in the “I’m too old for this” category, and inched closer to retirement.[/QUOTE]
I once objected to my lecturer in genetics that his answer was wrong. He told me he thought it was right, because he had copied it out of a book!
For some reason, this reminds me of a class I taught some years back when a student objected to my correction of their erroneous homework problem solution by stating they had copied their answer from an online answer book for our text.
Four things about this totally blew my mind: 1) they had used an answer book instead of doing the work themselves; 2) they did not trust me to have done the work myself and gotten it right; 3) they had the nerve to admit they had cheated on the work; 4) some grad student had gone to the trouble of writing and publishing a book answering questions they had not troubled to get right…. I made another check mark in the “I’m too old for this” category, and inched closer to retirement.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5198168, member: 6230″]I don’t have as strong of an objection when people use it as a starting point (and I don’t mean as a “primary” source), and then go get more information elsewhere (i.e. using Wikipedia as you call it as secondary source). This is because while it is convenient, I do not consider it to be trustworthy because of its basic premise and philosophy on how it operates.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Your statement in the insights article had me scratching my head a bit.
[QUOTE=”Drakkith, post: 5198153, member: 272035″]To be honest, I’m also a little confused by what Zz means by “Whole Philosophy”.
[USER=6230]@ZapperZ[/USER] , obviously you disagree with using wikipedia as a primary source, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with you on that. But when you say that you disagree with their whole philosophy do you mean that you think wikipedia’s core principles should be abandoned because they simply don’t work to make the site a useful source of secondary information? I assume you’re not saying that wikipedia’s whole philosophy tries to make it a primary source of information, but rather that people use it as a primary source when they shouldn’t. Is that correct?[/QUOTE]
Correct.
I don’t have as strong of an objection when people use it as a starting point (and I don’t mean as a “primary” source), and then go get more information elsewhere (i.e. using Wikipedia as you call it as secondary source). This is because while it is convenient, I do not consider it to be trustworthy because of its basic premise and philosophy on how it operates.
I’ve been here long enough to have encountered people whose whole “world of science” is nothing but Wikipedia! And when someone tries to argue with you by citing a faulty Wikipedia entry more than once, you get VERY tired at not only trying to correct this person’s wrong ideas, but also trying to explain why that Wikipedia entry is wrong! We shouldn’t have to do double work because of that.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198114, member: 123698″]Because that itself may be Wikipedia’s philosophy – that it be used as a secondary source. So it would be wrong to impugn a “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” when one might actually agree with it.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I’m also a little confused by what Zz means by “Whole Philosophy”.
[USER=6230]@ZapperZ[/USER] , obviously you disagree with using wikipedia as a primary source, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with you on that. But when you say that you disagree with their whole philosophy do you mean that you think wikipedia’s core principles should be abandoned because they simply don’t work to make the site a useful source of secondary information? I assume you’re not saying that wikipedia’s whole philosophy tries to make it a primary source of information, but rather that people use it as a primary source when they shouldn’t. Is that correct?
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198112, member: 205308″]Alright, so you agree that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. And you agree that there are crucial benefits in actual science books that are not in wikipedia. So I don’t get why you are arguing then.[/QUOTE]
Because that itself may be Wikipedia’s philosophy – that it be used as a secondary source. So it would be wrong to impugn a “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” when one might actually agree with it.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198108, member: 205308″]No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and refering to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao’s analysis book?[/QUOTE]
Also, you do not make it clear here what “primary source” means. What if I look at Wikipeda first, then study Tao’s book? Given all the non-standard definitions in this thread, why wouldn’t one call Tao’s book a primary source and Wikipedia the secondary source?
Alright, so you agree that wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. And you agree that there are crucial benefits in actual science books that are not in wikipedia. So I don’t get why you are arguing then.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198108, member: 205308″]No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and refering to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao’s analysis book?[/QUOTE]
No, I am not. I am arguing that against his point that there is a problem with Wikipedia’s “whole philosophy”. My point is that Wikipedia’s whole philosophy is in agreement that Wikipedia is not a primary source.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198106, member: 123698″]That’s for you to argue. My point is that Wikipedia is valuable.[/QUOTE]
No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and refering to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao’s analysis book?
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198100, member: 205308″]Everything that you can find in Tao’s book is something you can find on wikipedia. So why would you read Tao’s book instead of wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
That’s for you to argue. My point is that Wikipedia is valuable.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198098, member: 123698″]I replied to this above, but let me stress what I think is wrong here. If you are trying to be an an expert in analysis, then you read Tao’s book? Is Wikipedia intended to be on the level of Tao’s book. No. It is like criticizing a harmony textbook for not being a Beethoven symphony.[/QUOTE]
Everything that you can find in Tao’s book is something you can find on wikipedia. So why would you read Tao’s book instead of wikipedia?
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198083, member: 205308″]What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao’s book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).[/QUOTE]
I replied to this above, but let me stress what I think is wrong here. If you are trying to be an an expert in analysis, then you read Tao’s book? Is Wikipedia intended to be on the level of Tao’s book. No. It is like criticizing a harmony textbook for not being a Beethoven symphony.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198092, member: 123698″]That’s his definition in post #14.
[/QUOTE]
I do not see any definition in post #14. I see Zz giving an example of what it means to use a primary source. In that example, the source happened to be an only source. You have incorrectly deduced that primary source = only source.
[QUOTE]
Sure, authority is valuable. But that does not make authority inerrant, nor does it mean that amateur contributions are not valuable. This this is not sufficient argument against the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
So you would support a physics professor saying to his students: “we will not use a book for this course, we will rely mainly on wikipedia and my lectures. So for the exam, just study the relevant wikipedia articles.” ? Or would you support a physics professor who says “We will use Tao’s analysis book for this course. For the exam, just study his book.”?
Which one do you prefer and why?
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198083, member: 205308″]That is not Zz’s definition. He never said it was his definition.[/QUOTE]
That’s his definition in post #14.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198083, member: 205308″]Here’s where you are wrong: authority is often a good thing! The crucial part is to know when to rely on authority.
Let me expand on this. What I do [B]not[/B] mean is somebody reading a calculus book from a famous mathematician and encountering a theorem in there. Then he goes on and says “the theorem is true because this famous mathematician said so”. This is a bad form of authority. The student learning calculus should indeed apply logic to understand and reason about the theorem himself.
What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao’s book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).
Also, when you end up doing research, you will have to rely on authority multiple times. You simply do not have the time to check and investigate all the claims people make in papers. This is simply the way research is. Students such know which authority to trust and which not. Students should learn when a certain claim is suspicious, and when they can comfortably cite it. This is a crucial part of being a scientist.[/QUOTE]
Sure, authority is valuable. But that does not make authority inerrant, nor does it mean that amateur contributions are not valuable. This this is not sufficient argument against the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of Wikipedia.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198067, member: 123698″]
Furthermore, I find the suggestion that there should be “sole sources” (using ZapperZ’s own definition of “primary source”)
[/QUOTE]
That is not Zz’s definition. He never said it was his definition.
[QUOTE]and the argument from authority in learning maths and science to be problematic. In general, one should read many sources, and one should not depend on authority, but on logic and evidence.[/QUOTE]
Here’s where you are wrong: authority is often a good thing! The crucial part is to know when to rely on authority.
Let me expand on this. What I do [B]not[/B] mean is somebody reading a calculus book from a famous mathematician and encountering a theorem in there. Then he goes on and says “the theorem is true because this famous mathematician said so”. This is a bad form of authority. The student learning calculus should indeed apply logic to understand and reason about the theorem himself.
What I do mean is that many experts have a lot of valuable insights on a certain topic. So when I choose to read an analysis book and I choose to read Tao’s book, then I trust Tao to give me a lot of neat insights, that he will not lead me astray, that it will actually teach me analysis in a comfortable but accurate way. Yes, there will be errors in his book, but that is not my point. The wikipedia people are usually not experts in a field, and this shows in a lot of cases. And this shows not necessarily in the amount of errors, but rather in the amount of insights you can get from it, and the amount of analysis I can learn by actually reading the wikipedia articles on it (which is: not much).
Also, when you end up doing research, you will have to rely on authority multiple times. You simply do not have the time to check and investigate all the claims people make in papers. This is simply the way research is. Students such know which authority to trust and which not. Students should learn when a certain claim is suspicious, and when they can comfortably cite it. This is a crucial part of being a scientist.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198058, member: 205308″]I don’t understand what you’re arguing against atyy. You seem to be bringing up some very pedantic points now, but you have never pointed up what your stance is towards wikipedia and Zz’s article. Zz does not mean a first hand account to be a primary source. No, it’s not the usual definition, but who cares.
Can you say what your actual stance is, vs just bringing up small points as an argument?[/QUOTE]
My stance is that Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” is good and it is not flawed.
Criticizing Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” on the basis that some misuse it is not correct criticism of Wikipedia, since it is not intended to be a primary source.
Furthermore, I find the suggestion that there should be “sole sources” (using ZapperZ’s own definition of “primary source”) and the argument from authority in learning maths and science to be problematic. In general, one should read many sources, and one should not depend on authority, but on logic and evidence.
I don’t understand what you’re arguing against atyy. You seem to be bringing up some very pedantic points now, but you have never pointed up what your stance is towards wikipedia and Zz’s article. Zz does not mean a first hand account to be a primary source. No, it’s not the usual definition, but who cares.
Can you say what your actual stance is, vs just bringing up small points as an argument?
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198052, member: 123698″]A first hand account is a “primary source”. So your complaint is with Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” is that it is not intended to be a primary source? I see, you are insisting that Wikipedia should be a primary source. Yes, that is indeed a disagreement with its “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY”.[/QUOTE]
Aren’t you tired of twisting my words and mangling my point already by now? Or is this a hobby of yours?
Point #1 that I stated earlier, which is what I referred to in my reply to mathwonk, has NOTHING to do with what is meant by ‘primary source’! It is about the RUNNING of Wikipedia and the “cult of the amateur”! Read it again! Sheeesh!
Zz.
[QUOTE=”Jimster41, post: 5198020, member: 517770″]I don’t think that accuracy is the [I]only [/I]goal (or even the primary goal) of a live interactive, cross-linked, globally-accessible free encyclopedia – unlike anything else the world has ever seen.
I believe it represents the first modern learning system – I love it because it is an “open-world” of associated concepts with introductory (or better) explanations for just about anything and everything, at the tips your fingers, steered only by your uncertainty and curiousity. It’s extensibility and potential for contributing to education is limitless.
I am grateful from the bottom of my heart to the people who honestly try to make it better – like correcting content to match the canon, calling out unsettled or controversial stuff, policing the contribution process, adding awesome graphics and pictures, linking every page to deeper more orthodox content. I believe they are the ones with my interests at heart.
I contribute money to it regularly. Maybe rich educational institutions should do the same.
And good luck railing against it.[/QUOTE]
But I really would like to find out (i) what you actually learned and (ii) whether what you learned is actually correct.
Again, I’m using that Photoelectric Effect page. Let’s say you want to know what it is. Can you do what you would normally do, be it either use Wikipedia as your sole, primary source, or use it and then go look somewhere else to verify (which is what I would recommend), and then tell me what you have learned as what is meant by “Photoelectric Effect”. I would really like to quiz you on certain parts of the entry (no, you don’t have to memorize any of them, you can look at it as much as you want) and figure out what you have understood out of that page. It isn’t meant to put you down or to show how much you don’t know. I am truly curious what people actually learned out of such a page, especially when, in my opinion, the material was horribly presented.
Zz.
[QUOTE=”ZapperZ, post: 5197993, member: 6230″]This is what I listed as #1 on the faulty philosophy of Wikipedia. And truth be told, it was the impetus on why I wrote that original article (it was actually an entry in the old PF Blog). I had a friend who edited the biography of a famous person (not a STEM topic), and it included a first-hand eye-witness account of an incident at an event. A week later, he saw that his entry had been deleted, modified, and changed into something that contradicted what he saw, and all were based on 2nd hand, and shoddy “news” account. That was the start of a series of back-and-forth argument involving several different parties that mangled that Wikipedia page.
I followed this as long as I could stand, and that was when I decided to write that article years ago. And this was after someone was using a Wikipedia page as a source to argue against me on a topic I know very well. So there was a double-coupon reason to write this.
Zz.
P.S. My invitation to scrutinize that Photoelectric Effect page on Wikipedia still stands. I promise, I am not trying to trap you here. I need to know if you (i) understand the physics (ii) actually understood what it is trying to say and (iii) if you spot errors or something funny.[/QUOTE]
A first hand account is a “primary source”. So your complaint is with Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” is that it is not intended to be a primary source? I see, you are insisting that Wikipedia should be a primary source. Yes, that is indeed a disagreement with its “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY”.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198037, member: 205308″]No, he isn’t. And that is again obvious to everyone who is reading this thread.[/QUOTE]
But if Wikipedia’s own philosophy is that it should not be used as a “primary source”, and if ZapperZ agrees with it, yet has a problem with Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY”, then he is either contradicting himself or not using “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” in any standard sense either.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5198029, member: 123698″]The irony is that only mathwonk in this thread has used “primary source” in the standard sense.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ha Ha. fair enough. I can’t imagine anyone would use it as a source in a scholarly paper, unless it was to point out how “generally accepted by most folks as true” something was. I was thinking of it in the context of a wide ranging learning conversation – like the ones that happen on this forum, and I was thinking of primary as “first”.
It is great as a first resource because of what I said – It is navigable and it goes everywhere. It’s like the ultimate TOC, or card catalog. I often find myself learning about something completely different than what I began looking for just by clicking on words I don’t understand – and from that I’m learning the dependency tree, which is half the battle.
No, he isn’t. And that is again obvious to everyone who is reading this thread.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5198030, member: 205308″]I think it should be obvious to everyone what ZapperZ meant with primary source…[/QUOTE]
But the question then is whether he is using standard English.
I think it should be obvious to everyone what ZapperZ meant with primary source…
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197953, member: 205308″]He doesn’t mean this. You have misunderstood him. He gave you an example of a primary source. You incorrectly deduced that primary source means only source.[/QUOTE]
The irony is that only mathwonk in this thread has used “primary source” in the standard sense.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source[/URL]
I don’t think that accuracy is the [I]only [/I]goal (or even the primary goal) of a live interactive, cross-linked, globally-accessible free encyclopedia – unlike anything the world has ever seen.
I believe it represents the first modern learning system – I love it because it is an “open-world” of associated concepts with introductory (or better) explanations for just about anything and everything, at the tips your fingers, steered only by your uncertainty and curiousity. It’s extensibility and potential for contributing to education are limitless.
I am grateful to the people who honestly try to make it better – like correcting content to match the canon, calling out controversial stuff, policing the contribution process, adding awesome graphics and pictures, linking every page to deeper more orthodox content. I believe they are the ones with my interests at heart.
I contribute money to it regularly. Maybe rich educational institutions should do the same.
And good luck railing against it.
[QUOTE=”mathwonk, post: 5197969, member: 13785″]With this insight, I edited the wiki article for the classical case of curves, making a few changes to correct misconceptions that persist among people who have not actually read Riemann’s own account, and a few attempts to render the text more concrete and down to earth. Then I retired from the fray, only to see someone come in almost immediately and remove some of the correct statements I had made, and replace them again with the usual misconceptions and needlessly abstract formulations. What appears there now, much later, is a brief, clear but unmotivated and unsubstantiated standard summary such as one might read in any elementary text or undergraduate thesis, but without proofs. So I definitely would not consult wikipedia for an authoritative account of subjects I already know enough about to write articles on them myself.[/quote]
This is what I listed as #1 on the faulty philosophy of Wikipedia. And truth be told, it was the impetus on why I wrote that original article (it was actually an entry in the old PF Blog). I had a friend who edited the biography of a famous person (not a STEM topic), and it included a first-hand eye-witness account of an incident at an event. A week later, he saw that his entry had been deleted, modified, and changed into something that contradicted what he saw, and all were based on 2nd hand, and shoddy “news” account. That was the start of a series of back-and-forth argument involving several different parties that mangled that Wikipedia page.
I followed this as long as I could stand, and that was when I decided to write that article years ago. And this was after someone was using a Wikipedia page as a source to argue against me on a topic I know very well. So there was a double-coupon reason to write this.
Zz.
P.S. My invitation to scrutinize that Photoelectric Effect page on Wikipedia still stands. I promise, I am not trying to trap you here. I need to know if you (i) understand the physics (ii) actually understood what it is trying to say and (iii) if you spot errors or something funny.
[QUOTE=”mathwonk, post: 5197969, member: 13785″]a source for quick and ready summaries of information[/QUOTE]
That’s what I use Wikipedia for, when I can’t or won’t read an entire book or article to find something small that I want to learn or share. It is usually direct and to the point, and once you then know the basic terms or concepts you can google for other sources for confirmation or elaboration.
From reading the first part of Zapper’s article, he seems to me to be saying that one should not depend on wikipedia, if one really wants to understand something and be confident about it. Even though I do consult wikipedia at times for a quick version of something, I tend to agree, and think his warning is an important one for learners.
As an example of mine, I once edited the article on wiki for the Riemann – Roch theorem, especially for curves, and some generalizations. I am not an expert, since I have done no research on this subject, but its use figured in my research almost every day for some 40 years, and I have studied it in primary sources and authoritative texts by experts such as: Riemann (the original preliminary source), Roch (the second and final original source), Weyl, Siegel, Gunning, Mumford, Walker, Fulton, Hartshorne (I also audited his course about 1967), Arbarello, Cornalba, P.A. Griffiths, Hormander, Springer, Seidenberg, J. Harris, Miranda, Mayer, Mattuck, Atiyah, Chern, Hirzebruch, Kodaira, Serre, Zariski (I also heard him lecture on it in about 1966), Van der Waerden, Lang, Macdonald, Chevalley, Beauvile, Kempf,… I also spent part of one summer writing a set of notes on the theorem and posted them on my website.
(I have not however studied perhaps the most significant work generalizing this theorem in the last 60 years, the work of Grothendieck, exposed by Borel and Serre in 1958.)
After all these years of studying secondary sources, following courses, teaching and using the result in my research, and writing it up, I only felt I really understood the theorem when an English language version of Riemann’s collected works became available in the last decade, and I studied the original articles closely, after being chosen by Math Reviews as the official reviewer.
With this insight, I edited the wiki article for the classical case of curves, making a few changes to correct misconceptions that persist among people who have not actually read Riemann’s own account, and a few attempts to render the text more concrete and down to earth. Then I retired from the fray, only to see someone come in almost immediately and remove some of the correct statements I had made, and replace them again with the usual misconceptions and needlessly abstract formulations. What appears there now, much later, is a brief, clear but unmotivated and unsubstantiated standard summary such as one might read in any elementary text or undergraduate thesis, but without proofs. So I definitely would not consult wikipedia for an authoritative account of subjects I already know enough about to write articles on them myself.
On the other hand, when I wanted to know some formulas for volumes of spheres in higher dimensions for a geometry class I was teaching, I found an excellent, clear and comprehensive statement in wikipedia, which I then checked myself by giving proofs of my own devising.
It seems that the wiki articles I have read on subjects that I understand best, are written by students or energetic amateurs who give an account of versions of the material they have read up in standard books. On topics I am not so competent in, I cannot judge whether they are written by experts, but it seldom seems the case when I am able to judge.
So I find wikipedia useful in areas where I am deficient, which is most, to provide brief statements of facts, (not always accurate), but a bit below par in the few areas where I am much more informed than average. Thus I would suggest using it as a sort of Schaums outline series, a source for quick and ready summaries of information, but in cases where one aspires to become expert oneself, I agree one should certainly read instead sources whose authors are known specialists and experts, if not the original source by the discoverer, i.e. primary sources. The danger may be that since one cannot become a scholar by depending on wiki, its overly widespread use may thus lead to a decline in scholarship. Perhaps this is what concerns ZapperZ.
By the way, if you want a good account of the classical Riemann Roch theorem, I recommend the one in the book of Griffiths and Harris, as closest in spirit to the original.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197949, member: 123698″]If one has a primary source, there cannot be secondary sources. A primary source according to ZapperZ means there are no other sources.[/QUOTE]
He doesn’t mean this. You have misunderstood him. He gave you an example of a primary source. You incorrectly deduced that primary source means only source.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197894, member: 205308″]There are many good reasons why the Feynman lectures should not be used as an introductory physics book. One of the reasons to convince you should be that the original Feynman lectures at caltech were a failure. There are other reasons too.
The Feynman lectures ARE a superb resource, but you should be careful in how to use them. For example, you get a standard book like Halliday and Resnick (for intro physics), Kleppner (for mechanics), Purcell (for E&M), etc. You read a chapter in these books, do the problems, etc. Then you can check Feynman to see what he has to say about it. This way, you are using Feynman as a secondary resource. This is an amazing way to learn physics. But only relying on Feynman would be rather disastrous.
The same thing holds for wikipedia really. You get a standard book. You read a chapter, do the problems, etc. Then you can use wikipedia to check what they have to say about it. I do not have a problem with this approach since I do things this way myself. But then you are using wikipedia as an auxiliary resource, you would primarily be relying on the book. Relying primarily on wikipedia is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]
If one has a primary source, there cannot be secondary sources. A primary source according to ZapperZ means there are no other sources.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197890, member: 123698″]Well, I disagree. The Feynman lectures are a superb resource for learning, in spite of their errors.[/QUOTE]
There are many good reasons why the Feynman lectures should not be used as an introductory physics book. One of the reasons to convince you should be that the original Feynman lectures at caltech were a failure. There are other reasons too.
The Feynman lectures ARE a superb resource, but you should be careful in how to use them. For example, you get a standard book like Halliday and Resnick (for intro physics), Kleppner (for mechanics), Purcell (for E&M), etc. You read a chapter in these books, do the problems, etc. Then you can check Feynman to see what he has to say about it. This way, you are using Feynman as a secondary resource. This is an amazing way to learn physics. But only relying on Feynman would be rather disastrous.
The same thing holds for wikipedia really. You get a standard book. You read a chapter, do the problems, etc. Then you can use wikipedia to check what they have to say about it. I do not have a problem with this approach since I do things this way myself. But then you are using wikipedia as an auxiliary resource, you would primarily be relying on the book. Relying primarily on wikipedia is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197886, member: 205308″]No, he isn’t. He is saying that wikipedia shouldn’t be used as primary resource, and that wikipedia’s whole philosophy is responsible for this. This means that wikipedia’s whole philosophy implies that wikipedia is not a good resource for learning (and neither would encyclopedia britannica, and neither would the Feynman lectures (but for a different reason)). Wikipedia’s whole philosophy does make it a good resource for somebody already knowing the material, or somebody reading through a textbook and wanting to get another view on things.[/QUOTE]
Well, I disagree. The Feynman lectures are a superb resource for learning, in spite of their errors.
(I also don’t agree with you reading of ZapperZ’s essay. But then that comes down to an exercise in English literature.)
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197878, member: 123698″]He is attacking Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY”[/QUOTE]
No, he isn’t. He is saying that wikipedia shouldn’t be used as primary resource, and that wikipedia’s whole philosophy is responsible for this. This means that wikipedia’s whole philosophy implies that wikipedia is not a good resource for learning (and neither would encyclopedia britannica, and neither would the Feynman lectures (but for a different reason)). Wikipedia’s whole philosophy does make it a good resource for somebody already knowing the material, or somebody reading through a textbook and wanting to get another view on things.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197873, member: 205308″]No, he isn’t (well he is, but that is not his main argument). You are clearly not reading him carefully enough. He is concerned with errors, sure. But he is also concerned with a nonpedagogical approach to the material. An exposition in a book would identify certain inner-relationship, special cases, examples, etc. Wikipedia does not provide this. The material in wikipedia is often hard to understand even for the expert. And it is certainly not structured in such a way that it gives a beginner a good handle on the material.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197873, member: 205308″]Yes, the problem is with the people who think that they should rely on wikipedia only. This is exactly what Zz means with “don’t use wikipedia as primary resource”.[/QUOTE]
He is attacking Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY”, so he is assigning the blame for the misuse of Wikipedia to Wikipedia, not to the erroneous philosophy or those misusing it. It would be like attacking the “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” of the Feynman lectures, because some student learnt something wrong from it.
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197865, member: 123698″]
But then is the problem Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” or is it these people’s own personal philosophy that is problematic?[/QUOTE]
Yes, the problem is with the people who think that they should rely on wikipedia only. This is exactly what Zz means with “don’t use wikipedia as primary resource”.
Here is a description of the basic mistake in the earlier editions of the Feynman lectures:
This second error was pointed out to Feynman by a number of readers, including Beulah Elizabeth Cox, a student at The College of William and Mary, who had relied on Feynman’s erroneous passage in an exam. To Ms. Cox, Feynman wrote in 1975,[URL=’http://www.feynmanlectures.info/flp_errata.html#_ftn1′][1][/URL] “Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’s law. You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities. You also read the book correctly and understood it. I made a mistake, so the book is wrong. I probably was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact that moving the charges around in different places inside does not affect things on the outside. I am not sure how I did it, but I goofed. And you goofed, too, for believing me.”
[URL]http://www.feynmanlectures.info/flp_errata.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197865, member: 123698″]
Secondly, ZapperZ is not arguing that Wikipedia not be used as a sole source because of its errors. He is concerned with authority.[/QUOTE]
No, he isn’t (well he is, but that is not his main argument). You are clearly not reading him carefully enough. He is concerned with errors, sure. But he is also concerned with a nonpedagogical approach to the material. An exposition in a book would identify certain inner-relationship, special cases, examples, etc. Wikipedia does not provide this. The material in wikipedia is often hard to understand even for the expert. And it is certainly not structured in such a way that it gives a beginner a good handle on the material.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197857, member: 205308″]Sure, why not? If I want to learn linear algebra, then relying only on the book by Treil will not give lead me astray. Many colleges (including mine) only give one source for the material. I have learned many topics using only one book as source and nothing else.[/QUOTE]
But now I would be using you as a “sole source” for that :)
I think relying on sole sources in general is problematic. Even the wonderful Feynman lectures had mistakes – and no, I’m not talking about the the potentially controversial parts on quantum mechanics – there was an error in Feynman’s treatment of Gauss’s law, which Feynman clearly understood deeply, but was careless in that presentation.
Secondly, ZapperZ is not arguing that Wikipedia not be used as a sole source because of its errors. He is concerned with authority. But in general, and certainly in maths and science, it is logic and evidence that one should be concerned with, not authority. So I cannot agree with his attack on Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” and the misleading insinuation that Wikipedia suggests that it be used as a sole source.
[QUOTE=”micromass, post: 5197857, member: 205308″]Because I have seen many discussions on these forums where people argue with me. Some of these people use wikipedia as only source for their learning and they have very glaring misconceptions which they would not have if they read a standard book on the topic.[/QUOTE]
But then is the problem Wikipedia’s “WHOLE PHILOSOPHY” or is it these people’s own personal philosophy that is problematic?
[QUOTE=”atyy, post: 5197848, member: 123698″]But should anything be used as an only source?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, why not? If I want to learn linear algebra, then relying only on the book by Treil will not give lead me astray. Many colleges (including mine) only give one source for the material. I have learned many topics using only one book as source and nothing else.
[QUOTE]
Why?[/QUOTE]
Because I have seen many discussions on these forums where people argue with me. Some of these people use wikipedia as only source for their learning and they have very glaring misconceptions which they would not have if they read a standard book on the topic.