User:Lsutiger1987

I have one question...why is it that Wikipedia isn't generally accepted by academia as a valid source of information to be used in research related bodies of work? I actually know the answer to this rhetorical blurb. Because institutions don't consider it as a credible source. But, why is this so? Out of all the classes that I have taken at the University of Maryland, U.C., only one class has actually allowed or encouraged the use of Wikipedia as a source. It was a highly technical course that used Wikipedia often, even by the instructor. This was the exception, not the rule.

The real beef that I have with the premise that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source is that it presumes that the student can't be a critical thinker in determining what's credible and what's not. What do I mean by this? If I read something from a website that is a .org website, it is said to be usable as a source by most institutions. But there are many biased .org websites that have absolutely zero credibility. As a community of knowledge based content, Wikipedia can be a great place to jump start your research, that is, it can act as a reference from which you can base your starting point. It is also vetted by others with challenges to the content posted and it also provides for references to be listed to help make it "credible".