No, this isn’t a case of different people having different opinions about different ways to obtain information during different times. More often than not, I find that the SAME people who act like Wikipedia is the most unreliable thing on Earth unironically trust the FIRST Google Search result they see, as well as everything they’ve ever seen in ChatGPT.
Need I remind you that Google is LITERALLY designed to cater to your biases? And it’s gotten WORSE because the first result you see is NOW AI-Generated. Also, Google is not a source! And AI Chatbots cite THEMSELVES as sources!
Wikipedia on the other hand is curated by REAL VOLUNTEER HUMANS who strive to be accurate as possible. I’m aware that Wikipedia is no stranger to agendas or vandalism, but these editors are quick and dedicated to be as accurate as possible. So much so that whenever a building is on fire, they LITERALLY label it as “Status: Burning”. Not burned… BURNING! Meanwhile, Google tells you to put glue on your pizza…
And yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a source. Like Google, Wikipedia is a GATEWAY to sources, and not a source in and of itself. But at the very least, Wikipedia DOESN’T try to give you what you will like, because you’ll get what is (most likely) the truth instead, backed up by several CREDIBLE sources that are constantly fact-checked by volunteer humans.
So why do people hate Wikipedia so much? And why do these SAME PEOPLE cite Google and ChatGPT as a source?
See the thing is tons of exhausted teachers just keep teaching the same shit every year; many of them teach the stuff they learned when they were in school. So a crazy number of them do in fact still teach kids that Wikipedia can’t be trusted because anyone can edit it
Yeah, this is the answer. Lots of grade school teachers don’t continue learning because they were perfectly happy to just believe that nothing changes and they are the ones in a class that know stuff and their students don’t. You’ve had these teachers and they got mad at your questions when their answers conflicted. You know the ones. They say don’t quote wikipedia still
But Wikipedia can’t be trusted as a source. It’s great for overviews of topics and for listing out many other potentially valid sources in the reference list at the end of every article. If you’re writing a paper though, you should never actually cite Wikipedia
I agree. You don’t use it as a source in an academic paper, just like you shouldn’t be using an encyclopedia. It’s still way better than listing Chat GPT as a source, but the quality of your sources matter in that setting.
It’s an incredible resource though and great jumping off point for research. It’s so much bigger than any normal encyclopedia, and from what ive heard it’s usually more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia (do they still exist?), despite anyone being able to edit it. It’s a source for winning an argument with a friend, not for academic papers (the sources listed on the Wikipedia article are often good). Expect to be called out on it if you cite it.
There’s many issues with academic journals and one could argue Wikipedia is actually better for evading those traps, but your prof isn’t going to see it that way and you’ll lose marks for using a bad source
Wikipedia has quite strict rules on who cam edit what, and what can be changed, especially on major articles.
Besides, you follow the sources the Wikipedia article uses and cite those things. Not cite Wikipedia itself
That’s literally what I said lol