What's wrong with wikipedia?
There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and
when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you
want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may
get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read
entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using
Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who
wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may
be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in
the field —or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. While Wikipedia editors do correct
misinformation, observers have found that they don’t catch everything—at least not right away.
Sometimes inaccurate information is posted to Wikipedia on purpose, as a hoax. In some
well-documented cases, this inaccurate information continues to spread when people take it from
Wikipedia and use it in books and articles.
If you do start with Wikipedia, you should make sure articles you read contain citations–and then
go read the cited articles to check the accuracy of what you read on Wikipedia. For research
papers, you should rely on the sources cited by Wikipedia authors rather than on Wikipedia itself.
You can find more information about the errors that have been caught on Wikipedia on the
Wikipediocracy site.
There are other sites besides Wikipedia that feature user-generated content, including Quora and
Reddit. These sites may show up in your search results, especially when you type a question into
Google. Keep in mind that because these sites are user-authored, they are not reliable sources of
fact-checked information. If you find something you think might be useful to you on one of those
sites, you should look for another source for this information.
The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong
to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact,
the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields that offer
introductory information. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background
information or context for a topic you're writing about.
when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you
want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may
get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read
entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.
Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using
Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who
wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may
be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in
the field —or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. While Wikipedia editors do correct
misinformation, observers have found that they don’t catch everything—at least not right away.
Sometimes inaccurate information is posted to Wikipedia on purpose, as a hoax. In some
well-documented cases, this inaccurate information continues to spread when people take it from
Wikipedia and use it in books and articles.
If you do start with Wikipedia, you should make sure articles you read contain citations–and then
go read the cited articles to check the accuracy of what you read on Wikipedia. For research
papers, you should rely on the sources cited by Wikipedia authors rather than on Wikipedia itself.
You can find more information about the errors that have been caught on Wikipedia on the
Wikipediocracy site.
There are other sites besides Wikipedia that feature user-generated content, including Quora and
Reddit. These sites may show up in your search results, especially when you type a question into
Google. Keep in mind that because these sites are user-authored, they are not reliable sources of
fact-checked information. If you find something you think might be useful to you on one of those
sites, you should look for another source for this information.
The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong
to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact,
the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields that offer
introductory information. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background
information or context for a topic you're writing about.
上一篇:离婚后她惊艳了世界84章
下一篇:8 ᠮᠢᠨᠦ ᠨᠤᠲᠤᠭ
声明:以上文章均为用户自行添加,仅供打字交流使用,不代表本站观点,本站不承担任何法律责任,特此声明!如果有侵犯到您的权利,请及时联系我们删除。
文章热度:☆☆☆☆☆
文章难度:☆☆☆☆☆
文章质量:☆☆☆☆☆
说明:系统根据文章的热度、难度、质量自动认证,已认证的文章将参与打字排名!
本文打字排名TOP20
登录后可见
用户更多文章推荐
- 半岛电视台在以色列遭关闭2024-05-09
- 我不愿错过这一切——aerosmith2024-05-07
- 晚睡晚起也不好,你知道吗2024-05-06
- 美国大学应该申请警方介入学生抗议吗?2024-05-05
- 说说“管理”专业2024-05-05
- 宇宙的微小琴弦:一个令人费解的想法!2024-05-03
- 什么是真正的魅力?2024-05-01
- 为什么社会充满了焦虑?2024-05-01
- 004型航空母舰:自主建造航母2024-04-30
- 最近在追一个女生2024-04-30
- 生命的力量2024-04-30
- 别担心特斯拉强大的竞争对手——每日经...2024-04-25
- 对Z世代保持乐观的几个原因——每日经...2024-04-24
- 为什么女生有体香?2024-04-24
- 超弦:万物理论2024-04-24
- 他活得比我值——郭德纲2024-04-24
- 世界这一周——每日经济学人2024-04-24
- 我们都喜欢年轻的生命2024-04-23
- 你要跳舞吗?2024-04-17
- 美的历程2024-04-13