Using Wikipedia to Quote Sources

by Georgiegirl 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Georgiegirl
    Georgiegirl

    Recently, I've seen alot of posts using cut-n-pastes from wikipedia. . .now, I love wikipedia - BUT - for those of you who may NOT be aware - wikipedia is not a credible source. We aren't allowed to use it as a reference for any paper in university, and anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a scholar and researcher would lose all credibility by using wikipedia as a direct reference.

    Wikipedia is user-created - which means I can create a wiki on any subject I choose (whether I know anything about it or not). Others can edit whatever I come up (whether they know anything about it or not). It's been the subject of lawsuits because information posted on it has been wrong, inflammatory, and slanderous - yet re-posted in the media as actual fact.

    Wikipedia is a great place to start b/c a credible wiki will list original sources at the bottom - but check out the original sources and do your research from there. That way you have a better chance of knowing the information is accurately quoted and portrayed as originally intended (kind of like when you check the original sources on the Creation book and you find out the "quotes" are not as they were originally written)!

    Seeing wikipedia used as a primary source discredits the "research". Of course, a cut and paste without any thoughtful commentary does the same thing, but that's not the point here.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    Wikipedia is a great place to start

    I like the way you put that. Great description.

    I would also add that on many non-controversial topics, entries are reliable.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    The best part of a Wiki article, as far as research goes, is the links to the sources at the bottom.

  • notverylikely
    notverylikely

    We aren't allowed to use it as a reference for any paper in university, and anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a scholar and researcher would lose all credibility by using wikipedia as a direct reference.

    Wikipedia is fine for most purposes. We aren't writing research papers for school.

  • freydo
    freydo

    You mean things are credible as long as they haven't been posted on Wikipedia?

  • Cagefighter
    Cagefighter

    You are correct but sometimes I have a life and qouting wikipedia will lead you to the orginal sources, usually. Otherwise I'd have to do a whole "works cited" page for each posts. I do get away from the computer occasionally.

  • Alwayshere
    Alwayshere

    ONE THING WIKIPEDIA HAS RIGHT IS "America was never a member of "The League of Nations." Even Funk&Wagnalls will tell you the same. And any history on Woodrow Wilson will tell you the same. So Watchtower Society lied when they said Britain and America make up the seventh world power which is The "League Of Nations."

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR

    Wikipedia is a joke not only because of it's the lazy persons way to research, but also because of serious bias issues in politics.

  • notverylikely
    notverylikely

    Wikipedia is a joke not only because of it's the lazy persons way to research, but also because of serious bias issues in politics.

    Translated as "They aren't right wing enough for me and are entirely too fair to brown people."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit