Uni - Quick Question about referencing + Wikipedia

AmDaMan

AmDaMan

AmDaMan

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,023
Location
Wellington, NZ
Hi,

Just a quick one:

Wikipedia is generally not to be used as a reference. However in many articles Wiki may quote from a theorist or use extracts and then reference their book at the end.

Is it acceptable to use this information then list the reference that Wiki has provided (not referencing to Wiki directly but to the Theorist and book).

Personally I can't see an issue with this as it would only be as hard to verify for an assessor as a reference from a book? Plus there are many other E Journals doing this?

It will just supplement "real book" referencing nicely I think.

Or am I greatly mistaken?

Thanks.
 
Most are the lecturers I know are that bigoted that you only have to mention the word Wikipedia and they have a miniture fit. I too see no problem using it as a source if the points it makes are referenced as you say at the end of the extract.

However your lecturer may see otherwise. I'd ask them.
 
As long as you reference it, then it's fine.
However if you're lecturers don't like it, then you're screwed :D so just ask them?
 
I hated referencing at uni, such a ballache! As nickname has said however, lecturers seem to have a coronary over the mere mention of wikipedia so ask them
 
If you're going to reference a source, you should try and make sure you've read a bit more of it than just a quote on Wikipedia. There is such a thing as context, and Wikipedia could be... :o:o:o wrong!
 
gumbald said:
If you're going to reference a source, you should try and make sure you've read a bit more of it than just a quote on Wikipedia. There is such a thing as context, and Wikipedia could be... :o:o:o wrong!
Click to expand...

Fairpoint right there.
 
thecremeegg said:
I hated referencing at uni, such a ballache! As nickname has said however, lecturers seem to have a coronary over the mere mention of wikipedia so ask them
Click to expand...

Yeap find out exactly how your lecturer thinks.

I know what you mean about referencing, an exhousemate got her work published but because she did something funny in the bibliography, the mark for her coursework was pushed to a "fail". Things only really get published if quality of the article is at a "distinction" level.

gumbald said:
If you're going to reference a source, you should try and make sure you've read a bit more of it than just a quote on Wikipedia. There is such a thing as context, and Wikipedia could be... :o:o:o wrong!
Click to expand...

Yeap, people are really bad at this. Take published articles for granted. They did a huge study years ago on medical journals and found discrepencies in referencing in the majority!:eek:
 
gumbald said:
If you're going to reference a source, you should try and make sure you've read a bit more of it than just a quote on Wikipedia. There is such a thing as context, and Wikipedia could be... :o:o:o wrong!
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying but majority of Wikipedia articles are correctly referenced and in some part are referenced to a greater extent than other sources on the discussed subject!

In my opinion it's irrelevent anyway as said - if your referencing parts of your work you should have a degree of synthesis so any source should be backed up by numerous other sources.
 
NiCkNaMe said:
Most are the lecturers I know are that bigoted that you only have to mention the word Wikipedia and they have a miniture fit. I too see no problem using it as a source if the points it makes are referenced as you say at the end of the extract.

However your lecturer may see otherwise. I'd ask them.
Click to expand...

Check the orignal sources and quote them.

Your lecturers have a fit because Wikipedia is simply not reliable.
Sure you can use it to point you to sources that are checked factually before publication, but Wiki isn't and is about as reliable on it's own as me requesting advice on here for an obscure medical condition - the advice might be correct or it might leave me pushing miss Daisy up.
 
NiCkNaMe said:
I understand what your saying but majority of Wikipedia articles are correctly referenced and in some part are referenced to a greater extent than other sources on the discussed subject!
Click to expand...

You might pick a wrong one though... So if you've got the original source to check against, you may as well use that.

Yes, it may be referenced to a greater extent, but that's in someone else's writing. When seeing it in the original context, other interpretations could be taken - getting you much more credit potentially.

If you have a few sources that correspond with Wiki and they're awfully skewed, it will become very obvious.
 
I used wikipedia as it is normally worded things well and in a simple way.

But referenced proper books and made sure that referencing was done properly. uni did teach me that :D
 
Wikipedia isn't a valid reference, as it is referencing from elsewhere itself which is considered (in most half decent universities) plagiarism. If you see a line you want to use, check where wiki has referenced it from and then use that instead.
 
Never ever reference wiki unless u want to look like a tard. Just reference the link that wiki provides, chances are it wont be checked anyway.
 
uknowist said:
Never ever reference wiki unless u want to look like a tard. Just reference the link that wiki provides, chances are it wont be checked anyway.
Click to expand...

It will at decent Uni's. I've referenced wiki before, but only to show how it was wrong regarding Turing-complete early computers :p
 
Just use the references from wiki and go straight to the source of the quotes. Following references is a good way of researching. If were ever to reference from wiki though we'd be shown the door!

You can't trust wiki anyway, one of our lecturers changes certain information on wikipedia before a given lecture so if anyone uses it they will be caught out and look stupid (he promises he then corrects it again afterwards!).
 
As a general rule of thumb; the more trivial the subject you are studying the more pedantic academics get about referencing... So if you are studying english or history you'd better make sure that your referencing is impeccable :)
 
Werewolf said:
Check the orignal sources and quote them.

Your lecturers have a fit because Wikipedia is simply not reliable.
Sure you can use it to point you to sources that are checked factually before publication, but Wiki isn't and is about as reliable on it's own as me requesting advice on here for an obscure medical condition - the advice might be correct or it might leave me pushing miss Daisy up.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the first part but Wikipedia is still a good source for a brief overview of a topic, it can not and should not be expected to go into the same sort of depth as a 'proper' academic article but it also isn't automatically unreliable. I'd point to the study that Nature conducted back in 2005 and covered in this BBC report for science where they found that Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica contained the same amount of serious errors (4 each) but Wikipedia had more in the way of factual errors (although more minor, 162 to 123). I guess you are taking a chance but then you'd do that with any published report also, the problem with Wikipedia and the like is that it can be 'corrected' at any time between your using it and when the next person reading your work reads it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom