Do you use Wikipedia?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think people have been told by too many teachers that they're not allowed to use wikipedia as a source, and therefor they seem to associate that with wikipedia being a bad source of information, WHICH IT ISN'T.

It's one of the best you'll find. It's one of the best starting places for any kind of research and has a plethora of sourced information. You just can't use wikipedia itself as a cited source. That's it. That doesn't mean it's a bad place for information.

[apepi]

Wikipedia is fine as long as you do not use it as an actual source, use the sources that wikipedia links instead.

This, use it as a collection of many sources, instead of a source itself.

[Itisamuh]

I think people have been told by too many teachers that they're not allowed to use wikipedia as a source, and therefor they seem to associate that with wikipedia being a bad source of information, WHICH IT ISN'T.

It's one of the best you'll find. It's one of the best starting places for any kind of research and has a plethora of sourced information. You just can't use wikipedia itself as a cited source. That's it. That doesn't mean it's a bad place for information.

Exactly. It's the first site I go to when I want to research something. The reason it isn't a valid cited source is because it's not official. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Echelonl]

Many teachers are still living in the 90s when the internet was full of geocities info sites with horribly incorrect information.

Wikipedia is like 99% accurate and is more accurate than any real encyclopedia due to its instantaneous updates.

And pretty much everything is sourced to death on there. You can just use the sources that wikipedia uses to bypass the "no wikipedia" rule.

[Elegiac]

Many teachers are still living in the 90s when the internet was full of geocities info sites with horribly incorrect information.

Wikipedia is like 99% accurate and is more accurate than any real encyclopedia due to its instantaneous updates.

And pretty much everything is sourced to death on there. You can just use the sources that wikipedia uses to bypass the "no wikipedia" rule.

Or, more correctly, many teachers want -scholarly- sources. Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but as you said; it does use them.

It's good as a point of reference, but citing it as a source in a formal paper is a no-no.

Also, obligatory XKCD.

[Zhangfei]

Good teachers teach kids how to use sources and determine their meaning, implication etc. Wiki will never be a primary source but I encourage students to use it as a gateway or reference point.

[Elegiac]

Good teachers teach kids how to use sources and determine their meaning, implication etc. Wiki will never be a primary source but I encourage students to use it as a gateway or reference point.

Ohisashiburi desu ne. <3 Long time no see.

[Zhangfei]

Ohisashiburi desu ne. <3 Long time no see.

Oh, my twisted Australian love, you both delight me and frustrate me so much!

Long time, no see

[Icaras]

Never for school, I just use it to look up random stuff to read when I'm bored.

Given that its user editable, no way would I trust it if I was working on a serious project or the like.

[Pull My Finger]

Wikipedia is frowned upon in the "academic" world because it kind of disturbes their monopoly on "valid" research information. Makes them nervous. It's still great for getting information and for reference, no matter what the old farts say. Who cares if it's editable. If you're working on some "serious" research project, some stupid academic paper and whatnot, and intend to cite something, you're gonna double- and triple-check your sources anyway.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Go to the Wiki page, scroll to the bottom, there is a huge list of books, articles and essays with name, author and page number referenced. Use those. Much faster and simpler than wading through JSTOR or the library.