I hope Wikipedia doesnt go bankrupt it will feel like the end times . I think I will literally panic
Encyclopedia Britannica is always there
thereâs this place called a library. and they have these things called books. and then thereâs this thing called Google Search. where you can find books in PDF form.
Wikipedia is user edited. you can literally put anything you want in an entry almost. I think you know where Iâm about to go with this.
Youâre condescending and annoying. I am attached to Wikipedia out of sentimentality itâs always been there for as long as I remember and reliable to me for some casual trivia. Wikipedia is iconic and I love her. go write a research paper or something
who let high school teachers find tumblr
me: hm i wonder how many countries drive on the same side as the UK
friend: letâs check wikipedia in 2 seconds on our phones
some asshole on tumblr: um excuse me why donât you stop what youâre doing to go to the library and look it up in an outdated book thatâs edited maybe twice a decade and that definitely doesnât have a single page article called âlist of countries with left-hand trafficâ
also âuser editedâ really doesnât mean as much as you think it does. there are millions of people displaying accurate information, for every one person displaying inaccurate information. and that inaccurate information is usually changed quickly, and the person who made it can get their ip blocked from wikipedia if it was bad enough. way more accurate than textbooks or a library.
Librarian here! Iâve worked at both academic (college/university) and public libraries, and let me tell you this: most print encyclopedias are useless garbage we canât get rid of fast enough. With the exception of subject-specific sets which we need to buy again every few years because the information has become outdated, most of the information in any volume of an encyclopedia is far more accessible and far more in-depth on the internet.Â
Wikipedia as a reference resource is fantastic because, just like print encyclopedias, it serves as a jumping-off point for research⌠and so do librarians! A librarian isnât going to just write your paper for you, weâre going to point you to the books, articles, and websites that contain the information. Wikipedia is great for that, too, because any article that gets more than a bit of traffic will wind up with sources and external links. But print encyclopedias donât go that far in citing their sources, and because theyâre static media, the references may not only be outdated, they might be entirely inaccessible due to age, obscurity, or cost of access.
And thereâs an interesting thing about all those books we have on the shelves⌠anyone can write one, and usually they only have a handful of other people checking their work. Academic journals are somewhat notorious for the ease with which a completely falsified paper can see publication (especially in cases of electronic journals), but printed books can also be easily falsified, whether as a result of publishers with an agenda or just fact-checkers slacking off. Â
 As has been pointed out above, wikipedia is really great at getting obscenely specific in terms of the topics of articles. Itâs an amazing collection of data, and more importantly, itâs an amazing collection of sources of data.
The role of a reference librarian and a wikipedia editor are basically the same: show you a brief summary of the information you need, and point you to more in-depth, reliable sources.
I was helping a friend clear out their dadâs old stuff from their home recently and we came across encyclopedias from the 90s.
They all went to the dump. They were ASTOUNDINGLY outdated. Totally fucking useless.
High school English teacher hereâI regularly get crap from some of my colleagues, but I am completely fine with students using Wikipedia for info. Wikipedia does an excellent job of flagging articles that have been recently edited until someone can verify the changes, so pages with inaccurate info often have giant warnings at the top saying âTHIS PAGE MAY CONTAIN IANCCURATE INFOâ. Wonât find that in an out-of-date print edition.
Not only that, but Wikipedia cites its sources. It tells you right at the bottom of the page where all its info came from, so if you want to use a fact from Wikipedia but donât want a teacher annoyed with you, just cite the source in the footnote. Teachers and professors are (a) not likely to check up on this and (b) itâs a real source so even if they do itâs legit?
The biggest problem I have had with letting students use Wikipedia is actually that Wikipedia articles are often written in such academic language that students sometimes struggle to understand them. That part kids have to overcome on their own or with the help of their teacher. But thereâs nothing wrong with Wikipedia as a source. Hatred for it is a remnant of academic elitism, thinking that âpeer-reviewedâ can only mean some handful of crusty white dudes instead of literally anyone with enough knowledge and motivation to review it.
Honestly. My dad is a college professor and heâs told me time and again to always start my research at Wikipedia. You have to go further, obviously, but its such a great jumping off point for information.
Plus, where else can I find an itemized and updated list of every Cryptid known to human kind?
For the impenetrable articles, hereâs my tip.
The list of other languages in the sidebar? Look at it and check whether the article has a version in Simple English.
Simple English is a mode for non-native English speakers but is also great if your reading comprehension is not super good, youâre having a slow brain day for any mental health or developmental disorder reason, or the English version is just poorly written.
Librarian here, and this whole post gives me so much joy.
@sugargroupie, @turtletotem
I feel like people think ânot a reliable sourceâ means ânot trueâ but it actually means âcanât be quoted because the words might changeâ
I never knew there was a simple English version? I learned something new!
âJust use EB/the libraryâ
Ah yes, because these are absolutely going to have:
The filmography for a foreign voice actor(or any voice actor really)
The updated episode list of an ongoing tv show + the cast list
Alphabetize lists of gods/goddesses/various mythical creatures from around the world, ordered by type and region(i.e list of sun gods from around the world, organized by region and alphabetized)
24/7 access because I want to look something up at 2am
This is coming from me, the college professor. If youâre beginning research or donât understand a topic start with Wikipedia. No, you canât cite Wikipedia, but part of the difficulty students run into with academia is not understanding the language. So if youâre trying to research something, and some guy named Roland Barthes keeps popping up? Heck, yeah, you should Wikipedia and get a vague idea who he is. And then, you can look at Wikipediaâs sources. Or related topics to figure out keywords to search properly. So no, you canât use Wikipedia as an academic source, but itâs a great starting point if youâre trying to figure out where to go. If youâre reading an article in a library on the Marquis de Sade and the Kantian sublime, and youâve no idea what either of those are, it doesnât do you any good. Because guess what? If youâre reading academic articles, they are rarely going to explain who the Marquis de Sade or Kant are because theyâll assume you already know.Â
Oh, and those encyclopedias? They arenât academic either.
Wait! Is there a possibility that Wikipedia is going to go bankrupt?













