Wikipedia as a source

Why is an article that is referenced and subscribed to by a dozen full time editors, and moderated for accuaracy by wikipedia employees, considered more unreliable than an article that references itself only or one source at maximum?

It is policy to reference facts at the bottom of the page with their source. I have always checked those references and they are always accurate. What's the problem here?

It is true that anyone can edit wikipedia (except banned IP's), but anyone can put anything they want on the internet just as easily. On wikipedia, you are getting constantly fact checked by thousands of dedicated nerds. I can confirm how serious the community and administrative team take editing, because I edit there myself.

I would like for people to stop make referencing harder by banning wikipedia as a scholarly source. It has always been superior to one unchecked blog writer IMO, or even the opinions of a biased writer with slanted statistics. By far the most reliable and expansive source of information on the internet.

Also kudos if you are one of the people who reads the article discussion (nerds debating verifiable information) just as much as the actual article, and follows the actual footer links.

Blackflag: As a single source of information, I'd assume that could well be right. However, it doesn't hold a candle to paid journal indexes. And failing that, I'd say the free search on Google Scholar is probably better in most cases.

admin: Journalists are the worst source of information. They are motivated by capital gain. While I found some different than others, that seems to be the common trend.

Wikipedia does source journalists all the time, but it has a policy that eliminates conflicting information from being stated on an article, which ensures greater objectivity.

admin: I had never heard of google scholar, although I did discover that exact same utility on google a long time ago.

Just search "scholarly articles on..." in the regular google search engine and it will display articles at the top of the results

Blackflag: An academic journal is not written by journalists.

I agree with Admin. As an informal source, I've found Wikipedia to be about as accurate as anything equivalent on the internet, however the fact that it's edited by amateurs who, more often than not, simply copy and paste entire text from some other place, in my view, makes it less reliable than most other sources - such as court transcripts, cited research documents and the like.

The most telling thing is to look up something that you actually have an extensive working knowledge of and see how accurate it is then. Since my trade is fairly niche, that exercise pretty much always shows the authors up as being hacks who are just repeating the same misinformation that is all over the internet.

It's not that wikipedia doesn't contain a decent amount of factual information, it's more that it contains a significant amount of incorrect or outdated information as well. It can be really hard to differentiate between the two and so it's just better to ignore it as a source worth citing. Citing from the articles that they use to construct the article is fine.

nzlockie: simply copy and paste entire text from some other place
This will get your IP banned so fast. All information needs to be referenced. These references are checked by a dedicated editor of that article, and when they discover you plagiarized information, they will have the administration team either permanently restrict you from editing in that portal, or will outright ban your IP on the spot.

such as court transcripts, cited research documents and the like.
These are the most common references on Wikipedia. The policy is to preference accredited references over journalist sites.

One of the things you might not understand though, is that research documents have always been less reliable than a moderated open source information service. They are usually biased opinions, with slanted statistics, arguing for something these people already firmly believed in before they started their research. Not objective at all.

It's not that wikipedia doesn't contain a decent amount of factual information, it's more that it contains a significant amount of incorrect or outdated information as well
Actually, I would say over 98% of the information on wikipedia is up to date and accuarate. The other 2% are new articles which are still generating lots of discussion and initial editing.

Usually experts or enthusiasts are the one's who sign up to become dedicated page editors. For example , I more often than not edit articles in the country and military portals. I almost never edit a page in linguistics or animal biology portals. They are super skeptical too. 40% of anything you put on Wikipedia is likely to be re-edited by the members who subscribed to become dedicated to the article.

Blackflag: See, even if that were true about academics, the point about journals is that they have an extremely rigorous peer review process, some journals more so than others. This being the whole point of an academic journal in fact.

Blackflag: Yeah this post does absolutely nothing to change my view.

The fact that you edit Military articles and you have never even been in the military just kind of proves my point. I'm 100% sure that all of the articles on locksmithing are written by lock enthusiasts and maybe even the occasional manufacturer but I have worked in the industry all over the world for the last 20 years. I teach advanced locksmithing to locksmiths and manufacturers from all over. I KNOW my subject material in a way that an enthusiast just doesn't. Because that'smy livlihood. If my information is wrong then it affects my ability to earn a living. If their information is wrong it affects nothing. I have more invested in making sure my facts are correct.

I can instantly cite you a dozen articles where the text has been lifted directly from another source and pasted in there. Now it COULD be that the paster is the same person who wrote the original copy, but even if that were true, it doesn't matter. It's still the internet proving itself.
I'm not contesting that they're not supposed to do that, I'm only pointing out that it happens. A lot.

Your assurances that 98% of the information was up to date and accurate would carry more weight if you were an expert in even 50% of the information on Wikipedia. By your own admission you are not.

Wikipedia has its place and I like it well enough. The more popular a subject is, the more accurate the information is. Unfortunately if the subject is very well known, I probably don't need to use Wikipedia to learn about it.
If I want to learn a completely new subject, my research methodology used to involve going to the children's section of the Library. There I would get a very rough but easy to read over view of the subject. I absorb this information knowing that it will have been simplified many times over, but it is useful to give me a big picture. Then I gradually move up the age groups until I'm reading the more detailed technical manuals on whatever it is. I view Wikipedia as that initial "big picture" type resource.

The fact that you edit Military articles and you have never even been in the military just kind of proves my point
I reference everything, making me more objective. A pentagon employee is probably the last person credible enough to make an objective case on militaries.

I can instantly cite you a dozen articles where the text has been lifted directly from another source and pasted in there. Now it COULD be that the paster is the same person who wrote the original copy, but even if that were true, it doesn't matter. It's still the internet proving itself.
You are making this up. Therefore I challenge you to post half a dozen articles that are lifted, because I know you could never do it.

Your assurances that 98% of the information was up to date and accurate would carry more weight if you were an expert in even 50% of the information on Wikipedia. By your own admission you are not.
I am an expert in Wikipedia. I have been an active member for over a decade, and I probably have close to 2000 hours of browsing Wikipedia. Not joking there.

I can confirm that almost everything on the site that has finished the mass editing process is credible. You can't, because you are judging something you don't understand.

Blackflag: The Battle of Manners Street - wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manners_Street?searchDepth=1


http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/battle_of_manners_street

nzlockie: Look at the editing history. 34 unique IP addresses had edited that page, and it adheres 100% to the wikipedia editing rules.

Polyerus, the one who added that sentence which you are claiming is plagiarized, got it from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which is okay to exact quote since that particular encyclopedia grants rights for educational purposes.

Granted though, that is uncommon, but not against the rules. On certain page discussions you can catch extremely long and intense debates on whether it is okay to take text from scholarly sources that grant rights for educational purposes. The administration thinks its okay, and most people agree. The fact that the scholarly source is referenced legitimizes Wikipedia as a reliable site for information.

Blackflag: I have to go, but that's what i was saying. I'm not saying that it's illegal to copy and paste, I'm just saying that's what a vast number of editors do on there.

If you look at the link you posted, http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/battle_of_manners_street

The author copy and pasted both sections completely from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, whereas the Wikipedia editor Polyerus only cited and referenced the encyclopedia opening description, from this source

http://www.worldheritage.org/Find/battle%20of%20manners%20street

nzlockie: Copy and pasting IS actually illegal. There are copyrights to adhere to, and wikipedia is obligated to seek out and ban IP's which copy and paste information, even if it is cited.

Encyclopedias are the exception to the rule, but they are still very rarely copied. I usually only see direct lines on the Latin Animal Kingdom and Bacteria portals. This practice is actually preferred though. Information taken directly from an encyclopedia proves that you are getting reliable information and not opinionated nonsense.

Blackflag: Again, my commentary was nothing to do with the legality of the practice.