Slashdot Mirror
How Students Use Wikipedia
crazybilly writes "First Monday recently released a study about how college students actually use Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they found, 'Overall, college students use Wikipedia. But, they do so knowing its limitation. They use Wikipedia just as most of us do — because it is a quick way to get started and it has some, but not deep, credibility.' The study offers some initial data to help settle the often heated controversy over Wikipedia's usefulness as a research tool and how it affects students' research."
In the natural sciences Wikipedia is an important tool in research. In independent reviews the accuracy was on an equal level as other encyclopedias (Britannica), see for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wpausstellung-18.pdf (german language).
It provides a free source with fulltext search. In many cases the original research is cited, so that you can look for more detailed information.
Just imagine trying to get quick information about something without. I am currently working on Quantum criticality. A quick google search provides you with tons of information, the wikipedia entry is a accurate one-page document which cites the most important theoretical papers from the past few years.
Wikipedia keeps history. You can use that history to prove the edit was made after the essay was written.
Plus, if you include parts, you'd probably list the essay as a source.
Established, peer-reviewed journals?
...he/she wasn't referring to the OP, just that people who copy word-for-word from a site as big as Wikipedia likely get failed due to the anti-plagiarism programs that a lot of universities are no providing their professors with.
They weren't saying anything positive or negative about Wikipedia; just that the people who copy directly from it likely do (or at least should) get caught.
Living With a Nerd
Definitely true. I've used Wikipedia many times to get a heads-up on the topic and learn what sources are good for further reading. I would never cite Wikipedia itself; it's a bit too unreliable and, more importantly, changeable to use directly as a source
That's why you cite not WP:Monkey, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey&oldid=345367034, which is guaranteed never to change again.