Why is the internet an unreliable source
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information it's not peer reviewed by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
dnews
