Why You Should Not Use Wikipedia As Your Primary Source - Comments

[micromass]

That's for you to argue. My point is that Wikipedia is valuable.

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

 

[atyy]

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[atyy]

No, you are arguing against Zz saying that wikipedia can be used as primary source. This means primarily reading wikipedia articles and referring to a book for more details. So why do you think this is as good as going through Tao's analysis book?

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?

 

[atyy]

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.

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

To be honest, I'm also a little confused by what Zz means by "Whole Philosophy".

@ZapperZ , 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?

 

[ZapperZ]

To be honest, I'm also a little confused by what Zz means by "Whole Philosophy".

@ZapperZ , 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?

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

Okay. Your statement in the insights article had me scratching my head a bit.

 

[mathwonk]

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.

 

[atyy]

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.

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!

 

[mathwonk]

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.

 

[atyy]

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).

 

[Evo]

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.

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.

 

[atyy]

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.

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

 

[micromass]

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

Yes, because Zz referred 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.

 

[Evo]

Does it make sense to say that Wikipedia is ok as a starting point, and yet the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is wrong?

You are grossly misrepresenting what Zz said.

He said

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! This is what I am criticizing!

 

[atyy]

Yes, because Zz referred 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.

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.

 

[micromass]

Yes, he disagrees with the whole philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread is about wikipedia as a primary resource.

 

[atyy]

Yes, he disagrees with the whole philosophy of wikipedia, but this thread is about wikipedia as a primary resource.

But to disagree with the whole philosophy of Wikipedia is nonetheless a claim made in the post, and it is the biggest claim of the post.

There would be no debate if he just said, "Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source" (pure common sense).

 

[ShayanJ]

I'm confused by the emphasis on wikipedia. I agree that it can be annoying that you have to correct misconceptions caused by wikipedia from time to time. But is it just wikipedia that can cause misconceptions? No! Most of the misconceptions that people deal with here come from popularizations. People read a popular science article or watch a documentary, and they think they understand the subject and come here to argue with grad students and professors. I'm really confused that I don't see anything like this insight post about popular science articles while its really a routine thing here to explain to people that they can't learn science relying only on popularizations.
I rally don't think the problem is with the popular science articles/documentaries and wikipedia, the real problem is with people and how they think they can become an expert in the field using wikipedia and popular science articles/documentaries.
To me, it seems that there is a toolbox in front of us for learning science: Textbooks, popular books, popular articles, popular documentaries, lecture videos from universities, our own university classes, lecture notes,... and wikipedia! Its people's job to use the right tool for their job. Its really irrational to blame a screwdriver because you want to saw wood with it and you can't!
I'm definitely with atyy here. But it doesn't mean I don't agree with ZapperZ. I just want to say that instead of blaming wikipedia or popular science articles/documentaries, we should have insight articles explaining each of the tools in the learning toolbox are good for which level of learning.

 

[Evo]

But to disagree with the whole philosophy of Wikipedia is nonetheless a claim made in the post, and it is the biggest claim of the post.

There would be no debate if he just said, "Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source" (pure common sense).

There is no debate then because as you said He said

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! This is what I am criticizing!

So you agree that you were mistaken and there is no contention.

 

[atyy]

There is no debate then because as you said He said

Then the question is whether this is clear in the initial post. Did he write what he meant?

 

[Evo]

Then the question is whether this is clear in the initial post. Did he write what he meant?

His Op said

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. And 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 think he's pretty clear.

 

[Drakkith]

This is ridiculous. Thread locked pending possible moderation.

 

[Drakkith]

This discussion is literally going nowhere. Zz admittedly has a problem with wikipedia's philosophy, which may or may not have needed to go into the insights article, but the argument over what Zz meant has been going on for 5 pages now, even after Zz and I clarified what he meant in post 76 and 77. I don't feel like any meaningful discussion can take place after 5 pages of this going nowhere. Thread locked.