Back when I was in high school in the stone ages of the early 00s it was already running into trouble, and by the time I was in college for anything major-specific it was too broad or (as I said) oversimplifying concepts, so a bit of a risk, few lecturers by professors to the class on such things went students pointed it out. Anything research or even grad lvl it was totally and utterly useless. Still makes me roll eyes on some pages in the current year.
I don’t want to self-dox by specifying area, we’ll broadly say something in the life sciences that’s both highly specialized yet very interdepartmental. Idk the case for other specialties or areas, I’d imagine they’d have similar issues, perhaps not as terrible as the 2010s but still not good. For most laypeople, the intended audience of encyclopedias, this is probably acceptable. For true in-depth knowledge, there are no shortcuts.
Thought of another good one, for non-technical surface-level knowledge Wikipedia isn’t that great about foreign film information.
Few years ago quite a few CN films had bad propaganda-vandalism going on, notably Kalil Blues (thankfully been fixed, beautiful movie). Some wiki entries were as if whoever wrote them had never seen the film in the first place. Said films were so that regardless of language barrier anyone on 21st earth could shut off subtitles, maybe even picture in more dramatic cases, and tell what was written on the Wiki was not what the film was about. Did we watch the same movie?
You’d think the baseline for an encyclopedia would be at least that, but most people I know of for emergency purposes simply truncate the arts and media sections all together. It’s gotten better over the last few years there was well (controlling edits I’d suspect) or at least having entries in the first place.
Another more mundane film example would be a lot of Cantinflas’ films on the English wiki aren’t quite correct (last time I checked was a year ago, was curious about one of the actors) on events within the movie or famous lines/dialogue. Could be a case of randos altering according to memory alone, which we can all admit has its shortfalls.
I don’t know what you expect tho. It’s form of media with its own issues and advantages.
It saves me time not having to pull up that information myself from other sites. I don’t trust it for anything political but again it’s a resource so just be smart about how you use it.
For computer related stuff I’ve found it can be pretty useful.
It’s the same in law and the social sciences that I’m familiar with. It’s not improved. I would avoid Wikipedia if possible and recommend that any students avoid it, too.
If the only problem was that it was too, say, general, as in, misses out some details or nuances, that would be forgivable. More often than not, if you know the area well, you’ll see that Wikipedia is simply wrong.
Any undergrad paper that cites Wikipedia will be lucky to pass. Not because Wikipedia is cited per se, but because it’s usually incorrect. A paper that cites a Wikipedia article as a reliable source usually also contains other significant errors or omissions. If a paper relies on Wikipedia it is probably not relying on other, more appropriate sources, and if it did rely on those other sources, the author would have known not to cite Wikipedia.
wikipedia is more than advanced enough for any grades I was in. I still use it for technical stuff all the time.
Back when I was in high school in the stone ages of the early 00s it was already running into trouble, and by the time I was in college for anything major-specific it was too broad or (as I said) oversimplifying concepts, so a bit of a risk, few lecturers by professors to the class on such things went students pointed it out. Anything research or even grad lvl it was totally and utterly useless. Still makes me roll eyes on some pages in the current year.
I don’t want to self-dox by specifying area, we’ll broadly say something in the life sciences that’s both highly specialized yet very interdepartmental. Idk the case for other specialties or areas, I’d imagine they’d have similar issues, perhaps not as terrible as the 2010s but still not good. For most laypeople, the intended audience of encyclopedias, this is probably acceptable. For true in-depth knowledge, there are no shortcuts.
Thought of another good one, for non-technical surface-level knowledge Wikipedia isn’t that great about foreign film information.
Few years ago quite a few CN films had bad propaganda-vandalism going on, notably Kalil Blues (thankfully been fixed, beautiful movie). Some wiki entries were as if whoever wrote them had never seen the film in the first place. Said films were so that regardless of language barrier anyone on 21st earth could shut off subtitles, maybe even picture in more dramatic cases, and tell what was written on the Wiki was not what the film was about. Did we watch the same movie?
You’d think the baseline for an encyclopedia would be at least that, but most people I know of for emergency purposes simply truncate the arts and media sections all together. It’s gotten better over the last few years there was well (controlling edits I’d suspect) or at least having entries in the first place.
Another more mundane film example would be a lot of Cantinflas’ films on the English wiki aren’t quite correct (last time I checked was a year ago, was curious about one of the actors) on events within the movie or famous lines/dialogue. Could be a case of randos altering according to memory alone, which we can all admit has its shortfalls.
I don’t know what you expect tho. It’s form of media with its own issues and advantages.
It saves me time not having to pull up that information myself from other sites. I don’t trust it for anything political but again it’s a resource so just be smart about how you use it.
For computer related stuff I’ve found it can be pretty useful.
It’s the same in law and the social sciences that I’m familiar with. It’s not improved. I would avoid Wikipedia if possible and recommend that any students avoid it, too.
If the only problem was that it was too, say, general, as in, misses out some details or nuances, that would be forgivable. More often than not, if you know the area well, you’ll see that Wikipedia is simply wrong.
Any undergrad paper that cites Wikipedia will be lucky to pass. Not because Wikipedia is cited per se, but because it’s usually incorrect. A paper that cites a Wikipedia article as a reliable source usually also contains other significant errors or omissions. If a paper relies on Wikipedia it is probably not relying on other, more appropriate sources, and if it did rely on those other sources, the author would have known not to cite Wikipedia.