Wikipedia vandalism copied by research websites
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
Don't trust ANYTHING you see written down, especially in the press and especially if it's important. Think about the MMR jab scare as a good example of the harm it can do. Think about the massive scaremongering over avian 'flu or swine 'flu.
I think a lot of sources out there are often wrong or misleading. I always try to cross-reference things I write about, but even then inaccurancies sneak in. It's an unfortunate reality of deadlines.
Yet in your article about ammunition you took a completely bull**** claim straight out of a newspaper article without even checking it?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
This is interesting, more teachers should do this. This is the way forward for website plagiarism.
I have a Cell Biology lecturer who routinely vandalises relevent Wikipedia articles 2 weeks before submission dates for assignments. He has caught out more than a few students who have submitted utter crap because they diddnt check the source
Right, because that's helpful for other people who want to learn.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Right, because that's helpful for other people who want to learn.
It's about knowing the true facts though. If research was done properly they would no about the site been done over.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Learning and Wikipedia do not necessarily co-relate as evidenced by this thread.Right, because that's helpful for other people who want to learn.
read the thread
sites are ripping the 'wrong' articles and then the wiki articles are using these sites as references
obviously if the references are books and journals your probably ok but i bet theres been cases of the rubbish making it to those too
yeah if the sources is some crappy internet article don't use it, if the source is genuine peer reviewed stuff it's good.
basically use wiki to find books/journals and the sections of those journals to find what you need to save some time searching through them all from scratch.
The point is that the sites copying the articles are not considered to be sources by anyone so it doesn't matter, no one considers ask.com etc to be reliable sources, if you want a source you get a journal article.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Well, I fail my students if they cite wikipedia, if they don't cite it and use it (blatantly obvious) and am pleased when they (allbeit blatantly) use the references (journals please) from wiki 
.
.yeah but what happens when all those sources also copied their information off the vandalized wikipedia ?
When journals start copying information off wikipedia I think we will have much bigger problems to worry about.
If it's using wiki in it's references it's not a valid source.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I always make a habbit of exploring the relevent wiki pages both before and afterwards. It is also likely I have actually written/edited sections of such pages too.
I explained that perfectly well at the time, if you can't be bothered to read my actual words then I don't give a damn. It is completely fine as a statistic. Also, that post was mid-September; you should stop keeping notes on forum members Tefal, it's a bit sad.
But then you do see yourself as GD's resident universal expert. Like I said then too, let's see you do better.
Last edited: