User:RM395/Course/Week 02

=What is your relationship to Wikipedia? How do you use it? What is your opinion of its virtues and problems?=

For Research Purposes
I would type my comment here. A paragraph or so... --152.1.170.247 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is my response to your comment. Good comment! --152.1.170.247 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For Random Purposes
Sometimes I use Wikipedia to have a general idea about a subject or topic. If for example, I am talking to people online and they start talking about Honey Boo Boo (I don't watch TV) and I'm like "Who is Honey Boo Boo?!" I could look her up on Wikipedia and get a general idea of who she is. Or if someone starts talking about how they bought a "Lazy Susan" I could also look it up on Wikipedia to see what that is. For these kinds of purposes I view Wikipedia as like the "SparkNotes" to life; I can get enough information from a Wikipedia page to get the gist of what someone or something is. Because Wikipedia has a "disambiguation" option, it helps me find the right article for times where the name of one object could also be something else without having to look through a handful of websites that may or may not be related to what I am looking for. --MangoDango (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I love your quote "I view Wikipedia as like the "SparkNotes" to life". I couldn't put it better myself! There have been so many google searches I've done on random people or things or any subject of conversation really that have brought me directly to Wikipedia. If I want to know details or to figure out the "facts" behind a subject, reading their wiki page provides me with a perfect answer. Wikipedia allows you to go directly to a source you know is about the subject you are searching. You don't have to click through a thousand random websites and scour their pages looking for info. Wikipedia's format and layout make all the facts and information super easy to navigate and read. Sometimes I even forget Wikipedia is edited by a bunch of people, considering the solid info it provides. If I ever google anything, my first choice in websites is 98% a Wikipedia page. I also use Wikipedia as a starting point for research papers, projects, etc. It provides me a basic lowdown and a direction to point my research. Overall, because of the format and layout, Wikipedia is one of the top websites I use for just about everything.--Tabbboooo (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also love the comparison with SparkNotes! The main reason I use Wikipedia is for the brief intro paragraph at the top of every page. It's where I go when I want a condensed idea about a topic. It really is the SparkNotes to a subject. It's really easy to look up the origins of a band or when a movie was made and who was in it. It's also super convenient in that if you want to find out who's in a movie or show you look it up and can directly click the names of the actors or actresses. You can almost get lost on Wikipedia clicking link after link!--Eems.p (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For Homework
I am a Human Biology major which means that I have to take many science courses. When I'm doing homework for these courses, I often have to use formulas, theorems, random definitions, etc. I often need to look up these things, but as I am only an undergraduate college student, some of the more professional journals and articles don't make much sense to me. So, I usually resort to searching a topic in Google which inevitably leads me to Wikipedia. I do not tend to go straight to Wikipedia and search there directly, but the first Google search result is often a Wikipedia page, so I end up there anyways. For these purposes, Wikipedia works great. It is an easy source of information for the lay person and it's a good "one stop shop" for many different kinds of information. Yes, there is the possibility for spam, but for larger topics like the ones I search, there will be enough people editing the page that the spam will most likely be edited out. Wikipedia can be written and edited by everyone and therefore is a good place for everyone to get information.Kslinker5493 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For Research, Sort Of
I was in my Psych class the other day when the professor gave us a definition from Wikipedia, but he justified it first with: "It's ok to use Wikipedia for this since we just want the colloquial definition." I thought that was an interesting way to phrase it. It's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be a sort of colloquial source in general. I've used Wikipedia countless times as the first source for research. It does a good job offering major dates and names for any particular topic, making organizing research much easier. On better articles, the major sources (I've noticed in history, at least) are the more prestigious works in the field. I've found that the readings my history professors have assigned are often major sources for the topic's Wikipedia page.Luna002 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had similar experiences in classes where the professor will be okay with using Wikipedia as a starting point, but they rarely will even say to site it as a source on the final product. I find this interesting because in my experience, I have never seen any spam or inaccurate information. I know that these type of errors will exist just because of the way Wikipedia is set up, but they must be corrected quickly because it has always proven a reliable source for me.152.1.170.242 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have an update for my Wikipedia "uses and abuses." Out of curiosity (and laziness), I decided to take an entire online quiz (multiple choice) for my psychology class using only Wikipedia (instead of reading the book). Instead of taking an hour and a half to read and then take the quiz, I took 20 minutes and used Wikipedia for every question. I only got an 86% on it, but that's probably about what I would have earned anyway. It also became very clear to me why this generation has the memory of a goldfish. We don't HAVE to retain anything. Anyway, I'm probably going to academic hell for that stunt.Luna002 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As a Starting Point
I'm a part-time student at NCSU, but I work full-time as a writer. I write about complex, geeky topics that constantly require me to learn about something new. Wikipedia is often a good starting point. If the Wikipedia article is well-done, it can often "put me in the picture" quickly on a topic. For example, I just turned in an article yesterday that required me to understand the distinctions between a monomer and a polymer and a plastic. Wikipedia gave me a quick primer on these topics. I almost never refer to Wikipedia as a source for a story, but I often use the references to get at primary research, which I can refer to. Downsides are that sometimes the coverage on Wikipedia is "uneven," so the topic I'm researching might not be handled in depth, or the references might be weak. Also, I sometimes find that the articles are biased toward mainstream academic views. Dissenting points of view tend to get removed quickly and go unacknowledged. Brodmont (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, use Wikipedia as a starting point not only for research papers, but also for work. I'm also a writer for a software company, which also requires me to use technical terms in help documentation and in press materials. So I have to know what the hell I'm talking about! Wikipedia helps...to a point. The more technical articles are filled with jargon that's not necessarily easy for a layperson, or even someone with some programming experience (like myself) to grasp. While I find it great that anyone can edit Wikipedia, I've found that it's a self-selecting environment in which those who know about SSL are going to edit the SSL page, and those who know about blowfish encryption are going to edit the blowfish encryption page. And that's fine and useful for these individual articles. But these two groups may not have the same writing styles or ideas of how to present the information in the clearest, most readable way. So an "easier" subject to understand may have a more unreadable article than a subject that is considerably more complicated. In short, I'm sure we'll talk more about the "rules" of Wikipedia for standardizing articles (if such rules or "conventions" exist), but I do find jargon to be a problem. Katerwaul (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have found Wikipedia to be a great source for starting projects or papers for classes in college and even in highschool. The speed, ease of use, as well as the relative accuracy of the seeming majority of articles is frequently quite helpful. If for some reason I was suspicious of any information on the page, I just check the references at the bottom of the entry and check out the source of the information for myself.--Jeflicki (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I use Wikipedia as a starting and end point. For personal reasons and general interests I'll look things up on Wikipedia and can get enough information on it to satisfy a particular itch if need be. Obviously these are just basic things outside of school. For academic purposes, I'll look into Wikipedia for a general overview of topics before delving in more deeply. Most notably would be when I'm trying to find sources that I can actually use in educational research papers and whatnot. Sometimes I'll check out the linked sources in Wikipedia, and other times it's just nice to first become vaguely familiar with a topic and use that as a starting off point. It's a tool that I would be amiss not to at least acknowledge if not using thoroughly! --Seannator (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For Background Information
I typically use Wikipedia for background information when researching. It's easy enough to acquire current information from news outlets, but it gets a bit difficult to find an issue's historical details (the hashtag system notwithstanding) when you don't know what you're looking for in the first place. Wikipedia is an endless resource for people who need the type of organization that new outlets often fail to provide to readers. To a lesser extent, the website is a melting pot for entertainment fans who have an appreciation for film and television but who may have missed cultural allusions and other internal secrets [e.g., easter egg (media)]. -- Information-01152001 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has also been handy for background information. For some media I view, I often find myself checking Wikipedia articles to see what the original format of the source material. (e.g. Novels adapted into television programs.)--Jeflicki (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For General Information
I usually go to Wikipedia just to clarify or learn certain facts or pieces of information that I'm curious about. Whether it be historical or something to do with current pop culture, Wikipedia is probably the easiest destination to discover the general idea or definition of any topic. As far as the issues associated with Wikipedia's reliability, I sort of have a hard time not being skeptical them. I acknowledge that there are people who intend to insert their personal bias into some sort of publicly broadcasted internet source, but other tools on the internet exist for that, like blogs. If Wikipedia's policies are stated clearly that the source is intended to present unfiltered, reliable information, I don't understand why those who edit Wikipedia would approach it with full intent of displaying their ego. Unless someone actually has an interesting factoid to add to an article, who honestly chooses to sit and waste there time making terrible edits on Wikipedia? --Eng395jy (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works really well for me as a quick reference for any topic that I do not know much about.--Jeflicki (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For Technical Information
I generally start all of my searches for information on Google. Wikipedia is generally the first link and I know that it is going to be a quick source of general information so it's usually the first one I go to. I can think of one specific example where Wikipedia was very successful in answering my question. I was studying for my Game AI exam and I was looking at my notes for the A star algorithm and it just wasn't clear enough for me, so I searched Google for some supplemental information. I clicked on the Wikipedia link and it was very nice. The information was clear and easy to understand as well as providing all of the technical formulas. The best part was they even had an animated gif that demonstrated how the A star algorithm would actually work. This helped to bring the whole concept together and I was very impressed. I think its greatest virtue is fast, clear, compact data. I really don't want to have to read through lengthy technical articles to get a general idea of a subject. The biggest issue is false information, although I rarely run into false information and I usually look up things I know something about, like in the example I listed above. --MartellRedViper (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree that Google is usually how I end up using wikipedia. Wikipedia is almost always one of the results in a Google search, I have found. I have also found that wikipedia is usually abundant in information and much more organized than other websites that may provide equivalent information. Wikipedia's information is divided into categories that easily identify what you are about to read. I for one will choose to read a logically organized page rather than a jumbled assortment of facts with no identifiable order. This being said, I am generally satisfied with what I have read on Wikipedia and rarely choose to consult other websites.--Ryenocerous (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For Personal Research and School
I generally use wikipedia when I do not know the answer to some question or if I am trying to research something. Almost always, I will begin by typing the question or subject into Google and wikipedia is usually at the top of the list and contains significant information so I am typically satisfied with whatever information I receive and do not need to research any further. The organization that wikipedia utilizes in presenting information, usually a table of contents that you can click to lead you to certain segments of info on the page, is always helpful and superior to other websites in my opinion. Although many of my teachers specify not to use wikipedia in research papers I usually do to get a general point of view on whatever it is I am researching. The knowledge that I get from reading wikipedia usually makes its way into my paper, although reworded. I get direct quotes from other websites as needed, but the information I find is usually synonymous with info found on wikipedia. Basically, I tend to use wikipedia as a source when writing a research paper no matter what. I just wont cite it when a teacher asks not to use it and they never complain. In this sense, I find it strange that teachers find wikipedia an unreliable source of info. As mentioned previously, I believe that the organization of wikipedia is a virtue. I also believe the quality and quantity (usually) of information is a strong point. The only problem that I can think of, as an inexperienced wikipedia user, is that information on some smaller topics can be scarce occasionally. --Ryenocerous (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I use Wikipedia for pretty much the same reasons, and I love that you just use it anyway and don't cite it because I do the same thing. Basically because it's mostly general information and I can officially say, in my last semester, that it doesn't hurt anything to use it as a general reference and professors should calm down about it. I use it all the time both from home and on my phone when I run into something I don't know about, which is often. I use it more for pleasure than for scholarly purposes, generally, just to look up whatever. When I have a paper to write, it's always a good idea to check out the Wikipedia page first just to get an idea of what's ahead. I like it a lot because it's a clear format that's easy to read. A lot of websites take a million clicks to even figure out, links are broken, colors are all crazy and there are ads everywhere. I don't know what any problems are, really. --Tinaface86 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I enjoy using Wikipedia when trying to work on detailed school assignments and engaging in personal research and learning. Wikipedia is more factual to me and is stronger then the average encyclopedia due to the fact that it is a factual word book with many compositions from people all over the world and is a online source which is easily accessible. When I first heard about Wikipedia, I was excited and thrilled about a online source for obtaining information. Nowadays, I use Wikipedia if it shows up as a top result in a typical "Google" search which also ensures me on its accuracy to a certain degree. I believe that this source has room for growth and improvement but it is pretty reliable in personal explorations and basic school research assignments.

--Isaiahgee (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Starting Point for Research and Random Fact Search
Since I've been advised not to use Wikipedia, and my professors ban using it as a credible source, I generally look elsewhere for information. But, it is a good starting point for research. If I cant find any substantial information through other websites or search engines I'll start at Wikipedia and other searchable information available on other sites.--Jastout (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides research, if I'm looking, for example, for an actor in a movie or a professional athlete on a sports organization then I'll use Wikipedia, sometimes. I've found that the information about certain athletes and sports organizations is not accurate and/or do not have up to date statistical information. I try to use Wikipedia for sports information but as late I've found information that is not up to date, so I've decided to not use the site very often. --Jastout (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like the most appropriate category for my type of Wikipedia use. I would never be able to write papers if it wasn't for this website. The amount of information on a particular topic is substantial and the sources near the bottom always add input into my papers. For my internship with a sports radio show, we would use Wikipedia to find out random facts about a guest or some questions that we may be able to ask during the interview. It typically proves to have accurate information on past coaches and teams but as aforementioned by Justout, statistical information is usually off a few numbers and always needed to be validated by another website. --152.1.170.227 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This also seems to be the most appropriate category for me as well. I don't use Wikipedia as a source for papers I mainly use to for personal research or as a starting point when researching something for a class. I usually just end up going to Wikipedia when I am interested in looking up information on a place or event I hear about. Other than that I usually don't use it very often. When I do use it I find that it is accurate and reliable but then again I do only look up places and events nothing really controversial there that someone would want to manipulate.Youngpenn (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I fit here. Like many other people have already commented, I mostly utilize Wikipedia for quick reference when having a conversation with friends, or for random fact-checking for personal use, and as a quick reference for concepts not related to formal assignments. Wikipedia serves mostly as a way to win five bucks or settle a debate, but, on occasion, I will use it as a starting point for research. More often, however, I use sources more widely accepted as scholarly, such as Jstor, whenever working on assignments. --Albrp (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)