Should you use Wikipedia for medical information?

Should you use Wikipedia for medical information?

No, pal. Let me explain:
even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites,
it is not a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to
the project.

Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining everething here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Below is the article:

Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic
community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of
information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in
research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a
creditable source.

This can be avoided by following two simple rules:

  • Do your research assignment properly. Remember that any
    encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point.
  • An encyclopedia is great for getting a general understanding of a
    subject before you dive into it. But then you do have to dive into your subject,
    using books and articles and other appropriate sources. What you find in your
    other sources will be more detailed, more precise, and more carefully reasoned
    than the summary you found in an encyclopedia. The sources you cite in your
    paper will be the more detailed sources you have used. All you need to do with
    Wikipedia, then, is thank it in your heart.

An encyclopedia is great for checking little details.
Little details may be:

  • General knowledge that you have forgotten, like the starting date
    of the

    First World War
    or the boiling point of

mercury. In that case, you should recognize the information once you find
it, and know it’s right. Citation is not needed for things that are general
knowledge.

  • A somewhat obscure point, like the population of

    Ghana
    . If this matters for your assignment, you should verify the
    information using a tried and tested source, such as the

    CIA World Factbook
    .
  • A very obscure point, such as the names of the founders of the

Social Democrat Hunchakian Party. This may be almost impossible to find
anywhere other than Wikipedia, unless you read

Armenian
, which you probably don’t, or are prepared to spend an hour in the
library, which you probably don’t want to. In this case, you should rely on–and
cite–Wikipedia.

Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be

evaluated
.

  • If your professor has assigned you an article or a chapter, that
    means your professor thinks it is basically OK. Do you trust your professor?
    That’s usually enough.
  • If a book is in your university library or published by a
    reputable

    university press
    , or if an article is in a standard

    academic journal
    , that means that several professors at some point thought
    it was basically OK. But time may have passed, and the book or article may now
    be out of date.
  • If your source is a website, it may be great or it may be awful.
  • A Wikipedia article may be as good as (or better than!) an article
    assigned to you by your professor, or it may contain inaccurate information and
    eccentric judgments. It is unlikely to be as bad as the worst sort of website.
    You have to judge.

Progressively Wikipedia data will be referenced with scholarly references. Ideally when you see a reality in Wikipedia you will have the option to rapidly confirm it with an on the web, scholarly source, which you can refer to rather than Wikipedia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*