Other encyclopedias cite sources for their work. Wikipedia does not seem to have a facility for this, and I have yet to see sources cited in any of the articles. Am I correct in my assumptions? Why aren't sources cited? It would add credibility to the project.
Most of the time, however, the knowledge come first hand.
The thing to understand is that the articles generally will point you to external links and other related articles, and that becomes the sources for cross-reference.
In reality, most sources out there are biased and were not cross-examied to the extent the wikipedia can be, so ultimately, wikipedia will becaome more authoritative.
Other encyclopedias cite sources for their work. Wikipedia does not seem to have a facility for this, and I have yet to see sources cited in any of the articles. Am I correct in my assumptions? Why aren't sources cited? It would add credibility to the project.
I have seen sources cited in some articles. But it seems inconsistent, true.
Anyway, citations only mean that some other schmuck said it too;) OK, it may help somtimes...
I think that Wikipedia and similar efforts highlight how we should question all media. The mere fact that something appears in video or dead tree does not necessarily make it more likely to be true. Nor are expert reviewers infallible or free of bias.
In theory at least, citations allow you to track down a reference and find out where an error occured, if there turns out to later be a mistake. They also allow you to do the reverse -- if you see that an error-riddle reference is cited, then you can accordingly weight the reliablity of the referring work.
That depends on a number of factors. One is the depends on the type of writing. What's acceptable in a high-school project or an article for a daily newspaper is rather different than what's acceptable for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Secondly, it depends on the centrality of the citation. If you're just providing context on a well-understood topic that may be outside the knowledge of your readers (perhaps you're trying to explain optical character recognition to an audience of classics scholars),
general-purpose encyclopedias are widely cited in scholarly works. That's not done; even if they are expertly written and fact-checked, they are usually many years behind the latest research in an area.
I thought that was one of the big advantages of Wikipedia over tradition encyclopedias: timeliness. It's updated continuously -- minute by minute.
The latest research is often quite contentious; if one paper has just been published that goes against the conventional wisdom and there's not yet been time for reactions from the academic community, the Wikipedia has to be very careful if and how it reports that finding.
Secondly, in many areas, unless you're an active researcher in a specific field you may simply not be aware of the very latest stuff; it takes its time to get from conference proceedings into textbooks.
I agree with this criticism of Wikipedia. However, I disagree with the statement that "other encyclopedias cite sources for their work." Some articles in some encyclopedias have a bibliography, but even when present it is not comparable to, say, the standards of citation for a journal article. I probably need to look at the Britannica 3 again, but my experience is that MOST statements in MOST encyclopedias are delivered ex cathedra, as it were.
I just took a quick look at an Encarta article [msn.com] and I see a cont
You zeroed in on what I really mean. I have seen many encyclopedia articles which have a bibliography at the end. I haven't seen this in Wikipedia articles, and I wonder if it is discouranged, or if people just don't think to include them.
It is more honored in the breach than in the observance, though.
Notice, however, that many articles do have an "external links" section, which in many cases does point to sources and references. I think that, being a Web encyclopedia, the (lazy) tendency is to include Web references.
I know that when I work on a Wikipedia article, I am almost always working from my home, not from a
I think part of this comes from the vast userbase. The many users have lots of varied knowlege. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koku is a basic (stub, but there isn't much to say about it) article I wrote. I learned what a Koku was in Japanese class. Some botanist may descrbe different kinds of pine trees. etc. I think the need to cite sources decreases as the number of potential direct sources increases.
Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
-- Quentin Crisp
One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the time, however, the knowledge come first hand.
The thing to understand is that the articles generally will point you to external links and other related articles, and that becomes the sources for cross-reference.
In reality, most sources out there are biased and were not cross-examied to the extent the wikipedia can be, so ultimately, wikipedia will becaome more authoritative.
Besides, you do know how to use google don't you?
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:4, Insightful)
Other encyclopedias cite sources for their work. Wikipedia does not seem to have a facility for this, and I have yet to see sources cited in any of the articles. Am I correct in my assumptions? Why aren't sources cited? It would add credibility to the project.
I have seen sources cited in some articles. But it seems inconsistent, true.
Anyway, citations only mean that some other schmuck said it too ;) OK, it may help somtimes...
I think that Wikipedia and similar efforts highlight how we should question all media. The mere fact that something appears in video or dead tree does not necessarily make it more likely to be true. Nor are expert reviewers infallible or free of bias.
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:1)
Citations are a two-way street (Score:2)
"...are gay lovers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_and_Stimpy, 23:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC))"
All seriousness aside...
Do people cite Wikipedia seriously and get taken seriously? My hope is that the answer is yes, but my fear is that the answer is no.
Depends... (Score:2)
Re:Depends... (Score:2)
Re:Depends... (Score:2)
Secondly, in many areas, unless you're an active researcher in a specific field you may simply not be aware of the very latest stuff; it takes its time to get from conference proceedings into textbooks.
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:3, Informative)
I just took a quick look at an Encarta article [msn.com] and I see a cont
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:2)
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:2)
It is more honored in the breach than in the observance, though.
Notice, however, that many articles do have an "external links" section, which in many cases does point to sources and references. I think that, being a Web encyclopedia, the (lazy) tendency is to include Web references.
I know that when I work on a Wikipedia article, I am almost always working from my home, not from a
Re:One area Wikipedia seems to lack (Score:1)