Is Wikipedia a Credible Source?

Wikipedia is not acceptable for

scholarly sources seriously no but the

source is on Wikipedia sometimes they

are hey researchers trace here looking

into the deep annals of the web for

dnews to dissect Wikipedia back when I

was in college Wikipedia was in its

infancy it didn't necessarily cite

sources but now it's heading into as I

see it a golden age firstly why isn't

Wikipedia scholarly if you Wikipedia

Wikipedia and you get over the weird

gross the effect it says there's a split

perception in academia about using this

online general encyclopedia as a

scholarly source Wikipedia certainly

doesn't and shouldn't claim to be one of

those but it's a great collection of

general information primary sources are

like journals or letters or a photo

while secondary sources would be a

commentary or a description of that

journal or photo Wikipedia is definitely

the latter and the subject to

interpretation and bias far more than

that primary source would be according

to Cornell's digital literacy resource

Wikipedia isn't scholarly but the

sources it's citing might be

unfortunately they say it's far too

general an encyclopedia for good

information it's not peer reviewed by

other experts and there's not a static

ability to come back easily to find that

information months days or years later

in general and cyclopædia is like

Britannica or the world book aren't

slidable themselves once you get to a

professional level in your degree

program they're just too basic but to

say that they're better than Wikipedia

isn't exactly correct either a study in

nature in 2005 indicated that when

directly compared to the Encyclopedia

Britannica Wikipedia had a similar

number of errors in their science

articles Britannica disputed their claim

and nature rebutted it it was an

internet encyclopedia battle royale and

the 42 articles they looked at there

were eight serious errors over all four

from each encyclopedia but when it came

to spelling mistakes factual errors in

the like Wikipedia had 162 to

Britannica's 123 Jimmy Wales founder of

the website believes the best way to

improve it is to get experts to start

giving it some love and the University

of California here in San Francisco is

ready to do just that medical students

are pretty scholarly right well starting

this year those medical students will

able to edit Wikipedia for a grade

according to the release from UCSF

Wikipedia gets 53 million page views a

month just for their section on

medications an area where I think you

would agree medical students and their

professors would have a little bit of

expertise rather than leaving it to the

masses the professor dr. Ayman Azam

believes that it would be beneficial for

these rising experts to set some of

their records straight on the record not

only is this going to improve Wikipedia

it will teach these med students how to

talk to the public something doctors

ain't so great at in my opinion

Wikipedia is a great place to start your

research I do it most every day I get a

good foundation then you go on to more

scholarly specific primary sources for

example I found the link to this on

vices motherboard blog but I went to

UCSF for the actual press release

primary source what up if I were to want

to dig even deeper and get more

information I'd go to dr. Essam himself

but we're sticking pretty general with

this one so how do you feel about this

should we be giving academic credit for

editing Wikipedia are you gonna stop

citing Wikipedia and find primary

sources tell us your thoughts in the

comments below and subscribe for more