Wikipedia

[eiver]

Generally speaking Wikipedia is great, just remember that anyone can edit it, but I myself have never seen any form of vandalism or incorrect information (maybe I was lucky).
Wikipedia has a rule, that no original (or unverified) research should be put into it. Wikipedia only repeats what was told in other places, so you can always verify how credible the original source is.
As far as scientific work is concerned I was discouraged at my university to use Wikipedia as a source or a reference directly, when writing a report. The original source or reference should be used, instead of just saying that it comes from Wikipedia. But anyway its an absolutely great source of information and I use it constantly.

[nukm]

Is Wikipedia a reliable source for studying Macroeconomics and other branches of Economy? I'm in a college, and i find many things i learn from books very hard to understand. That said, i regularly endeavor to find other explanations online. I know there are numerous sites offering a myriad of information about economy, but none are well systematized as wikipedia.

Wikipedia would not be a suitable "academic" source. Your college should have a standardized guideline for the preparation of papers, with a section dealing with sources and proper citations. Since Macroeconomics is math intensive, you'll not get much from Wikipedia, which is a "popular" publicly edited site. The site is also edited by the "operator" according to his whims and fancies.

There is a body of academic literature pertaining to Macroeconomics (and Economics generally) which you will need to conquer if you are to be a professional economist. Naturally, a propensity to mendacity and obfuscation will be an increasingly valuable asset for the burgeoning Economist. Your faculty advisor can assist you with your questions. You should tell your faculty advisor that you cannot understand what you read. If English is not your first language, there are many classic Economic works in German, French, Russian and other languages. Doubtless, your course instructor has furnished a list of reading material which is expected to be assimilated.

There are certainly online repositories pertaining to Economics which might also provide academic works and papers, but Wikipedia is not an academic site. If your college allows Wikipedia as an academic course, and you are paying for your education with real money, you are being cheated.

Good luck!

[det4100]

Naturally, a propensity to mendacity and obfuscation will be an increasingly valuable asset for the burgeoning Economist.

That was good.

Let us not forget the importance of prevarication and sophism.

[Fred]

nukm & det4100,

Two of the best and truest posts I've seen lately. lol

+1

Fred

[FedoraRefugee]

As mentioned, most universities will not accept wikipedia as a source. However, it is a great place to start your research. Use it as background information and they should also include a bibliography or links to their sources. It is a great first stop to get an overview of a subject and the popular consensus opinion on something. Just be aware that majority opinion does not make something right...or wrong...

[mehmet7]

I would say some information on Wikipedia is just excellent. Nevertheless, a lot of professors tend to have a not so positive attitude towards Wikipedia as there -while editng and content standards are clearly rising- is not a single defined standard for the content. That would mean that i.e. for different subjects in history, economy etc.there might approaches differing a lot from each other. Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia is good to get a first glimpse on a subject you are not quite familiar with, afterwards it is more easy to get information from textbooks, other websites etc. I just would not recommend to cite it in research papers, homework etc.

[Biker]

Hmmmm. Looks like spam. Smells like spam. Well, what do you know? It IS spam!

[Aging Technogeek]

Member antholory"s post deleted and member banned. Reason - spam in signature line

[eiver]

One of my most "wikipedia friendly" professors told me, that if I really, really have to use Wikipedia as a direct source of information then I should at least provide a link to a particular version of an article. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_Mint&oldid=362026562

instead of just: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mint

[waldo]

One of the errors made by the academic community in dismissing Wikipedia as an unreliable source is that so called more scholarly publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica contain many biased opinions tending towards whatever is trendy in that same academic community. "If it agrees with what I think, then it is scholarly; all that other writing is just wrong-headed opinionated blather!"

[linuxviolin]

One of the errors made by the academic community in dismissing Wikipedia as an unreliable source

I think they are right. As great as it can be Wikipedia is not a fully trusted source. Yes, it's a good project and it can be place to start your research but there are also errors, inaccuracies and other things like that. We can also find articles hacked etc I think scholastic manuals and encyclopaedias are more trusted sources for students.

I myself have never seen any form of vandalism or incorrect information (maybe I was lucky).

Yes, you were lucky. Personally, I saw several of them... Sorry, no, I won't seek them again for you.

[randomizer]

Wikipedia often references "scholarly" sources. In these cases it is still not considered credible. In fact, for a couple of assignments I've completed I was required to use news articles and other non-scholarly sources for research, but I could not use Wikipedia. Obviously news is credible...

[tdockery97]

Obviously news is credible...

[randomizer]

I think the reason behind the ban on Wikipedia is because students who use Wikipedia will realise where their subject content all comes from and become angry when they find out that they (or their parents) pay to be taught that which is freely available online.

[tdockery97]

I think the reason behind the ban on Wikipedia is because students who use Wikipedia will realise where their subject content all comes from and become angry when they find out that they (or their parents) pay to be taught that which is freely available online.

Interesting point of view.

[waldo]

What is so bad about Wikipedia, that teachers should prohibit students from using it for projects or reports?

The problem with Wikipedia is that there is no formal academic style peer review of the content. Anything written by anyone can be claimed as true. The counterclaim is that academics are often biased, and who knows if what they write is true.

Popular published encyclopedias always have the content reviewed by recognized relevant experts.

My wife is a teacher, and she does not allow Wikipedia as a source. However she does suggest it might be a good starting point to find appropriate sources.

[waldo]

I think the reason behind the ban on Wikipedia is because students who use Wikipedia will realise where their subject content all comes from and become angry when they find out that they (or their parents) pay to be taught that which is freely available online.

A good education teaches you how to learn. It has little to do with the content that you have dabbled with during the education process.

[DrHu]

Apart from wikipedia or wikileaks or other internet search locations, they all have the same deficiency
--they have no scientific basis, so can't be considered a rigorous source of data

If you need general data/information and measure it by how much sense it makes to you, then it is and can be a good resource: the internet, that is..

[tdockery97]

Like any source of information, it is your own responsibility to check the references provided before you turn around and represent it as fact.

[linuxviolin]

Like I already said, as great as it can be Wikipedia is not a fully trusted source. You can find wrong informations, errors, inaccuracies, even sometimes hacked articles etc It's may be a source, a starting point but NOT an absolute reliable source...