Using Wikipedia in scientific work: to be or not to be

[lopebix427]

Wikipedia can provide users of the World Wide Web with millions of articles on a wide range of topics. And it is the one that ranks first in search engines for many queries. How can one resist the temptation to use this most complete and accessible online encyclopedia to argue one's point of view? But just as often, these arguments are shattered by the opponent's ironclad retort: ​​"You also found an authoritative source! You might as well have cited the old lady on the bench!"

We also recommend: How to find information for a scientific article

The Young Scientist Publishing House will help you understand why Wikipedia cannot be considered a trustworthy source when writing a scientific article , dissertation or monograph , and what benefits can still be derived from this vast and fascinating repository of knowledge.

Let's start with the main question: why you can't fully rely on information albania telemarketing data from Wikipedia and why you should refrain from citing it in scientific research.



6 Reasons Not to Use Wikipedia as a Citation Source
1. The first and most important reason is written in Wikipedia itself: "Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source." The quality of Wikipedia articles is also uneven: some of them can be of very high quality, while others are nothing more than garbage. This alone is enough to be critical of the information they contain. For those who want to get to the heart of the matter, the following five points are dedicated.

2. The point of Wikipedia as a "people's encyclopedia" is that it can be edited by anyone with Internet access. Therefore, it is very easy to fill it with dishonest information and false facts. Although in most cases acts of "vandalism" are stopped and articles are brought to the proper form, it also happens that articles distorted by oversight or malicious intent can hang for several months, misleading readers.

3. Let us turn to the question of what sources are acceptable to use and cite in scientific work. Such sources traditionally include official and scientific publications. Popular science, literary and artistic publications are allowed to be used only as a subject of research. It is not recommended to use textbooks and reference publications in scientific works. An exception is made only for the most authoritative scientific peer-reviewed publications. Everything that concerns reference publications can also be applied to Wikipedia.

4. To assess the reliability of any information, you need to answer two questions: "Who wrote it?" and "Why did he write it that way?" We very often assess the reliability of information based on the authority of its author . Thus, we will trust the conclusions of a famous scientist more than a newcomer in this field. As for Wikipedia, you will not find an answer to any of the questions stated at the beginning of this point. None of its articles have an author as such: the vast majority of Wikipedia creators are anonymous, they hide behind pseudonyms, and we cannot find out who they really are, and, accordingly, we cannot assess whether they are trustworthy.

5. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is formally supposed to express a neutral point of view, the resource's administrators often use their powers to add information to articles that confirms their own concept. The English editor of Wikipedia since 2003, William Connolly, became widely known at one time, having rewritten more than 5,000 articles in accordance with the theory of global warming that he supported and banned more than 2,000 people who disagreed with his point of view.

6. You cannot rely entirely on any source of knowledge, even the most authoritative one. To err is human. In scientific publications, however, the probability of error is minimized. When dealing with a scientific monograph from a university library or an article from an academic journal, we know that several authoritative scientists have evaluated it and found it worthy of publication, and editors and proofreaders have worked on it. As for websites (unless, of course, it is the website of a respected scientific organization), citing the information contained therein is not the best idea. It is the duty of a scientist to question and verify any information, to evaluate and compare any sources. And Wikipedia is no exception.