Wikipedia

[Aliantha]

As a recent university student, I can say there's no way I'd even consider citing wiki as a source. The reason for that is that the articles on that site don't distinguish whether they're actually published articles or not, therefore, if they have not been published, they are not a reputable source. They have not been peer reviewed and often contain slanted or flat out untrue statements.

I don't think anyone should use wiki as a reference cited on a paper, however, as has been mentioned, it's sometimes a good place to look for information in order to start to formulate an argument.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They have not been peer reviewed and often contain slanted or flat out untrue statements.

I thought the point of Wikipedia is that all articles are peer reviewed. By everyone. Nearly everyday.

It's prof's discretion where I'm going to class and most allow it to be used once. Nothing wrong with using it to read through the original sources, either, since they're cited.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I thought the point of Wikipedia is that all articles are peer reviewed. By everyone. Nearly everyday.

Originally Posted by Flint

In this article: deliberate (and subtle) deceptions were corrected within three hours.

"The fibs that professor Alexander Halavais slipped in were deviously subtle: that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, lived in Syracuse, N.Y. for four years, and that the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under won an Oscar for film editing. Both are false, but would you have doubted these "factoids"?

Halavais hypothesized that the obscure errors would "languish online for some time," the Chronicle reported. Instead the Wikipedia volunteers eliminated all the fabrications within three hours of being posted."