======================================================================== Subject: WIKIPEDIA F.A.Q. ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am tempted to cite Wikipedia; should I? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is usually no reason to do so, especially if you cite it for a definition. You can get better definitions from texts or published articles. (And don't be tempted to cite a dictionary--or (worse) "the dictionary"; that's also a no-no, but one that I'll leave for another time.) In general, you should rarely, if ever, cite Wikipedia as a source in a technical paper for publication or in a paper for a course. There are two reasons: 1. There is no way to know who wrote the articles, so no way to judge if they are accurate (unless you already know the material discussed, in which case, there's no reason for you to be reading the article or citing it; you presumably know enough to be able to cite a more standard source). 2. Anyone can change any article at any time, so your citing an article *now* doesn't mean that your reader will necessarily be able to find it *later* to check it (or that what they find will be what you cited). Note that this is independent of point 1, which concerns the possible unreliability of the authors; point 2 concerns the dynamic nature of the resource--only static resources should be cited, so that everyone knows that they are referring to the same thing and not a changing target. (Yes, I know that there is a Wikipedia archive; see below.) There are exceptions: * Obviously, if you're writing a paper *about* Wikipedia, you can cite articles in it (though keep point 2 in mind!). * And I have cited the Wikipedia article on UB CSE's SNePS knowledge representation, reasoning, and acting system, because it was our SNePS Research Group that wrote it. (Of course, I have to keep checking it to make sure that no one has hacked it!) * And very occasionally I will recommend a Wikipedia article to introduce someone to a topic, *if* I can't find anything better on the Web, and *if* I know the material well enough to know that the Wikipedia article is authoritative. Nevertheless, point 2 is always lurking in the background. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Isn't there a static archive of Wikipedia articles that can be used to work around problem #2? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes: Jon Bona explains: "You can link to a specific version of any article. For instance, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on "Philosophy": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy "Just about anyone who wants to can edit this page. If I wanted to, I could add the assertion that Socrates ate grilled cheese for lunch every day. Someone would probably remove it quickly, but, during the time between my adding it and their removing it, that would be the official Wikipedia story on Socrates. "Contrast that link with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=113498091 As it says near the top of this page, this is the Revision as of 04:14, 8 March 2007. What the page looked like when someone made a change to it at 4:14 on March 8 is not something that changes. Wikipedia keeps track of that, and allows you to link directly to specific version. "To do that, go to the page and click on the "history" tab. You will see a list of the most recent revisions made to the page. You can view a specific version by clicking on its date and time. "Problem #1 is serious enough on its own to make citing wikipedia in any serious work a bad idea. It's worth noting however that wikipedia often has links to sources that *are* citable." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, am I allowed to use this static archive for the term paper? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. It's useful, but: (a) It is difficult to use; e.g., is there an easy link on a Wikipedia entry that points you to such an "archival" citation link? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a much more authoritative--yet dynamic--web encyclopedia, has such a link prominently displayed on each page. (b) I suspect that most people, certainly *all* students who have cited Wikipedia in papers they've turned in to me, either don't know about this or ignore it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ But what about those "sources that *are* citable", like the external references that are sometimes provided at the end of a Wikipedia article? Often, they are both static and are written by identified authors. Can I use them? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ They can be useful. Note that I didn't say that Wikipedia isn't useful. In fact, I've often found, much to my pleasant surprise, that most articles on Wikipedia are pretty good. But being useful and having useful external links doesn't make it *citable*, which was the point I wanted to bring out. As I've said, *using* Wikipedia is fine (as long as you take what it says with a grain of salt); citing it is usually not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you the only faculty member who is this mean about Wikipedia? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No; others are even meaner :-) You might be amused by this article from the NY Times: Cohen, Noam (2007), "A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia As a Research Source", NY Times (21 February): B8. www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/wikipediaban-nyt.pdf username=Bill password=Rapaport You should also read: "Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's a question from a student: | | I read the NYT article on your web site and I'd agree with the history | professors in terms of stating that their students cannot use | Wikipedia as a first-hand source. What I didn't see anyone mentioning | though, is that a collaborative site like Wikipedia allows various | versions/variations on a subject, such as history, and to me, that is | beneficial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My reply: But only if the discussion is not mere opinion and is supported by reasoning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The student continues: | | There are very few universal truths and the rest of the areas like | history (or social sciences in general), are often written by victors; | for instance, a failed coup is a terrorist act/insurgency and a | victorious one an independence movement. I think what the department | is trying to say is that using Wikipedia might allow students to note | different perspectives but that in and of itself would be insufficient. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My reply: As long as all perspectives are clearly identified as such. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The student continues: | | Saying that they should cite at least one more | source, preferable print, along with a Wiki entry seems reasonable to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My reply: And as long as the Wiki entry is properly cited so that it can be checked (see previous messages in this thread for info on Wikipedia's article-archiving service). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The student concludes: | | And yes, I've often been pleasantly surprised by this site, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My reply: Still, for Intro to Cog Sci (CSE/LIN/PHI/PSY 575 & APY 526), I will not allow Wikipedia citations in the term paper. (Consider this an exercise in constraint: How much can you do *without* Wikipedia?) For that matter, the same restriction goes for most websites in general. You should use the Web to find published documentation, not as a primary source itself. (Compare libraries in the good old days of card catalogs: You would search the catalog for a book that you could read and cite in a paper; you wouldn't cite the card catalog :-) -Bill Rapaport