3 ms·

>I used to roll my eyes reading how academic researchers and librarians would discourage using webpages as resources. While this is true in general, I am amuse

>I used to roll my eyes reading how academic researchers and librarians would discourage using webpages as resources. While this is true in general, I am amused that this is not true for citing wikipedia. Wikipedia can be trusted to remain online for many more years to come. And it has a built-in wayback machine in the form of Revision History.

techphys_91 6y ago
Usually a reference indicates that an author believes something to be true, but won't explicitly state their reasons. It isn't just a statement of where information comes from, but a justification for trusting that information. If the reference is from a reputable source, then it indicates that this belief is justified. If an author believes something to be true because they read it on wikipedia, then that belief probably isn't justified, because the reliability of wikipedia content is mixed. Good quality information on wikipedia often refers back to published sources, and at the very least an author should check that source and refer to it, rather than wikipedia itself.
mountainb 6y ago
Try following the references on big Wiki pages and you will see why Wikipedia pages are nightmarish for any kind of research. This is important when you are trying to drill down to the sources of various claims. Many major pages relating to significant events and concepts are riddled with rotted links. The page can be completely correct and accurate, but if you cannot trace the references then it cannot be verified and you cannot make the claims in a new work as a result. The whole point of references is to make it so that the claims can be independently verified. Even when there isn't a link rot problem you will often find junk references that cannot be verified. Wikipedia isn't a bad starting point and sometimes you can find good references. But it is not anywhere close to reliable: just trace the references in the next 20 Wiki articles you read and your faith will be shaken.

techphys_91 6y ago

Usually a reference indicates that an author believes something to be true, but won't explicitly state their reasons. It isn't just a statement of where information comes from, but a justification for trusting that information. If the reference is from a reputable source, then it indicates that this belief is justified. If an author believes something to be true because they read it on wikipedia, then that belief probably isn't justified, because the reliability of wikipedia content is mixed. Good quality information on wikipedia often refers back to published sources, and at the very least an author should check that source and refer to it, rather than wikipedia itself.

mountainb 6y ago

Try following the references on big Wiki pages and you will see why Wikipedia pages are nightmarish for any kind of research. This is important when you are trying to drill down to the sources of various claims. Many major pages relating to significant events and concepts are riddled with rotted links. The page can be completely correct and accurate, but if you cannot trace the references then it cannot be verified and you cannot make the claims in a new work as a result. The whole point of references is to make it so that the claims can be independently verified. Even when there isn't a link rot problem you will often find junk references that cannot be verified. Wikipedia isn't a bad starting point and sometimes you can find good references. But it is not anywhere close to reliable: just trace the references in the next 20 Wiki articles you read and your faith will be shaken.