Wikipedia as a source?

It has been repeated numerous times since I joined this forum. Do not rely on information provided by Wikipedia.

Many of the people who help over at that site take very seriously that wikipedia is not seen as a solid source of information. They would like it to be, but understand why. They strive to get much of the information correct. Many are like those of us here on this forum. People interested in a wide range of topics covering a narrow subject matter.

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is a good starting point, not for researching the topic, though it usually gives a decent overview, but for finding sources. Which books to read, where to find the best on line articles, etc. However the ever evolving nature of the site itself does not make it a good source to include in a essay you write for your college professor. What I read today, may not be included tomorrow, making citing rather difficult in my opinion.

Anyways, my point. I was flipping through amazon for some books i don't have that cover the Battle off Samar. I tried a few searches and found a book released just last month. There were no reviews yet of the book, and the description was unsatisfactory, so I clicked on "look inside". I was shocked when I read on the bottom of the page "*Bibliographies of ships were taken from researching Wikipedia and interviewing survivors and relatives of survivors."

First, I'm confused as to what the author is telling us. It appears to me that he is informing us that the bibliography is being lifted straight from Wikipedia. If that is correct, then did he look at those sources, or simply claim he did? Is Wikipedia a solid enough of a source to be cited in such a manor?

Thoughts?

 

I use Wikipedia to get an overview of a subject-for example, when I want to learn more about a battle, I look it up on Wikipedia. I can get troop strengths, casualties, commanders, a rough idea of the tactics, stuff like that. I never bet the farm on what I read, however.

Just out curiosity, what book was it?

 

Guys I think you are missing my point, though I fully agree with what has been said. This is IN a book released just last month (8 April 2010) claiming the author used Wikipedia for information. How apropriate is this? After looking at the book a little more (sorry, the title is Linebackers of the Sea by Ray Lubeski) it seems most of the book is simply memories of men who survived their destroyer being sunk. Each ship appears to have a chapter about it, with a brief Wikipedia like overview about a paragraph long.

 

Perhaps, since he was interviewing the men, he considered the Wiki information as having been verified? It really seems odd to me that someone would cite wiki in that manner.

 

let me ask the question then : can a bonafide author be creditable by using wiki in any language as a back up source. remember that any wiki is just an overview a short syno if you will of the item covered and then citing sources themselves in some cases bogus/trash outs.
hopeful I am not going OT with my posting but wiki is just the modern day mans/womans encylco Britannica, in the day of pushing books off the shelves and delving headlong into the internet relying on it's vast and varied source materials.

 

Wiki has one big failing. If something is in a published work then it is fit to be cited. Even if the book is full of lies and invention in Wiki terms it trumps all other non published sources.

 

OK Wiki is not a reliable or credible source for information, Really Who Knew, I use it religiously:ww1ace:

Well I've seen many of the big Wigs Icci use Wiki as reference, I find it a quick source instead of digging out for hours documents to provide as Source or remembering in which book I read the info. Many WWII history books documentaries have mistakes or not the complete detailed information that one wishes, since ULTRA Was realised to the Public plus other US Secret Documents, we're learning more concerning WWII History.

Yes Wiki has Mistakes and I've expressed that on 25++ Posts

Like The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore History should read! In the threat of War being declared by Britain and Canada on the US Or in the Mergence of War being Declared by Britain on the US concerning the "TRENT" Affair! In 1862 a Volunteer Militia of Scottish citizens of Montreal were organized under General Orders January 31 1862 as "The 5th Battalion, Volunteer Rifles of Canada" Now known as The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders Regiment) of Canada.

Post # 56.

http://www.ww2f.com/military-history/41318-always-blaming-us-3.html

Operation Goodwood wiki says 18th to 20th well Goodwood lasted till 26/27 with the German Counter attacks

And the list goes on and on Much of the info I see on Wikki is correct and if so why not use it, if I Have to provide a quick Source for Information.

If the Info provided is Correct I`ll use almost any site. Why It looks better because the same Info Comes from a more reputable historian that has been half right all their lives. According to ULTRA major Changes have to be made to many Accounts of WWII History.

Hey I just provided A good document on a Thread on Pearl Harbour US Navy Declassified Document
Source; United States National Archives, Modern Military Branch

Not All info or Archive documents have links

 

I would say it's highly inappropriate for an author to rely so completely on a Wikipedia article. It's one thing to refer readers to Wikipedia for further research, but the author really should have confirmed that list with historic documents. Yesterday I checked out War from the Ground Up from my local library. That author includes a bibliography, but cites nothing in the text. So, if you read a quote or any other assertion, there's no way of knowing the specific source. Unfortunately some authors think that a general audience just isn't interested reading beyond the author's own words.

 

In my opinion, it's completely inappropriate. Useful as Wikipedia is, it remains an online encyclopedia that anyone and everyone can edit at whim. It's one thing for a person who is fully aware of Wikipedia's limitations to use it, it's quite another for an author to use it as a source for his book, which will be read by others who assume it to be reputable information.

 

Hi Lou. That is exactly why I was so shocked to see that quote. Again, not knowing the contents of the book, I simply clicked the show me a random page and found reference to wiki. Looking into the contents of the book further I found a couple quotes from survivors of ships that I had seen before, despite the appearance that he held interviews with same (stories shouldn't change but how they are reflected usually do). Getting more and more suspect if you ask me. I went ahead and purchased a copy anyways. I am now intrigued. From Amazon and Google books previews, it appears there is no bibliography for the book, though much of what I have seen on area's that I know about, I have seen in other works. I will give it a read and see what I can verify.

I am in no way claiming that any of the information is incorrect, just that what I have seen seems to be either undocumented or inappropriate as a source.

 

Next Time you source Wiki I'll let you know GreyBeard, Yes your right not to be used as a sole source but one that can be cross reference.
iIt`s true that Wikki Just provides Standard Info in small detail as a bases.

I'll be the devil's advocate Icci Why would I need Independent verification if the info provided is 101 WWII History and already known and verified as dissected by all historians. The book is probably full of Standard accounts as quotes things that are standard information.

If I write an Article on an Assessment of a Battle in WWII I have to Source 300++ Quotes or Accounts, when they have already been established as confirmed Fact.