using wikipedia articles in academic paper
Hi everybody, recently I got the following comment from a reviewer of a paper of mine: " *There is considerable use made of wikipedia and in an academic paper this is disappointing. *" I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing? and are there limits/rules/good practices that you follow, both in writing and in review processes? If for example I am writing a paper on the peer review process in Open Source development, I often use wikipedia articles as references for technical terms, like "Diff", "CVS" or "Conditional Programming". Not being a Computer Scientist myself and thinking that the audience of my writings won't be composed of Computer Scientists as well, I feel that it is good to provide some basic references for complex, technical and often obscure terms. In this cases I prefer to use wikipedia articles, rather than Computer Programming or Operating Systems manuals, because I think that those articles are better and can be easily reached by anybody. On the contrary I never use wikipedia articles as references for sustaining an academic argument or as references for authors (e.g. I do not use the wikipedia article fo Harold Garfinkel, but I use the book Studies in Ethnomethodology; I never use the wikipedia article for referencing the "situated action" concept, but I use Lucy Suchman book). So, any thoughts? comments? S. -- Italian Conference on Free Software 2009 http://www.confsl.org/confsl09/ Stop the numbers game http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1300000/1297815/p19-parnas.html?key1=1297815... My institutional page http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml
Dear Stefano, Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation. It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12. And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept. In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook). Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes. Of course, strictly personal opinion :) All the best, Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia
Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 'rtfm'. If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not to, then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information. My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :) -- Christophe. Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
Dear Stefano,
Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.
And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept.
In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook).
Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes.
Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
All the best,
Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net
Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hello all. While I agree that the use of Wikipedia as a support for an argument or as a sole source of legitimation is bad scholarship, I think it is very appropriate as an illustration of an ongoing public debate or as a stepping stone for a theoretical discussion as a supplement to scholarly material. It has to do with context and the totality of the article; a discussion of Wiki etc. can open up a limited scholarly debate and supply evidence of alternative understandings. In itself, it is not enough. I see it in a lot of undergraduate term papers: The good ones have researched a bit and includes assigned readings, additional literature and internet resources, the bad ones have googled and use the top three as sources. To begin an article with a dictionary definition is, unless it is justified, on the level of beginning with "already the ancient Egyptians...". But Wikipedia or a dictionary is not in itself necessarily common knowledge. When that is said, you'll usually get a lot more from Wikipedia if you know the subject in the first place. All the best, Jesper Petersen. ---------------------------------------------- Jesper Aagaard Petersen Research Fellow, Dept. of Archeology and Religious Studies NTNU, Dragvoll NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway Tlf. 0047-735-98312 email: jesper.a.petersen@hf.ntnu.no -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christophe Prieur Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:23 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] using wikipedia articles in academic paper Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 'rtfm'. If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not to, then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information. My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :) -- Christophe. Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
Dear Stefano,
Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.
And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept.
In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook).
Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes.
Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
All the best,
Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net
Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think Jesper Aagaard Petersen nicely puts his finger on the central point. To be sure, there are many entries in wikipedia that are just fine - and sometimes, as in the case of Kuso as described by Nishant Shah, it may be the only easily accessible and credible reference to offer a reader. But we know this - better, one of the goals of our research and scholarship is to know how to evaluate the quality of claims, arguments, etc. in such articles, whether electronic or in print - by our having developed a larger overview of the topic, theme, etc. that allows us to make informed judgments. And this sort of larger overview, of course, (almost?) inevitably involves familiarity with several relevant sources that we find in print (and/or, e.g., an electronic version of a journal article available through JSTOR, etc.). I try to model this framework of scholarly research and knowledge with my students. They are welcome to start with an entry in wikipedia - more often than not, in my experience, the relevant entries are more than adequate as starting points; some are delightful masterpieces. But I and my students will come to figure this out only by going on and developing the larger framework of understanding via additional articles and resources - many, if not most, derive from "traditional" print sources. What I/we object to, I think, is not the use of electronic resources per se - but the (usually) very narrow and ill-informed framework that results if a student or scholar can only navigate, as was mentioned, the first three online sources prompted by a search. To echo an earlier point re. Kindle vis-à-vis books - in my mind, the issue is to determine the appropriate uses of each technology, resource, etc., and learn how to use these, often in complimentary fashion, for the sake of improving our knowledge and understanding. The risk to that project, of course, is that our (usually fully justified) fascination with new possibilities and new technologies may incline us to ignore or neglect the older for the sake of the newer. cheers, everyone, and thanks! - c. On 5/7/09 6:01 AM, "Jesper Aagaard Petersen" <jespaa@hotmail.com> wrote:
To begin an article with a dictionary definition is, unless it is justified, on the level of beginning with "already the ancient Egyptians...". But Wikipedia or a dictionary is not in itself necessarily common knowledge. When that is said, you'll usually get a lot more from Wikipedia if you know the subject in the first place.
Not this conversation again :). I would no sooner approve of the use of Wikipedia as a citation than I would of Encyclopedia Britannica or (as noted above) the OED. All of these are repositories of common knowledge and do not *need* to be cited. It's assumed that if you do not know the meaning of a technical term, and if the author has not taken the time to parenthetically define it, it can be found in a common reference. The referees questioning your use of Wikipedia as a source for information on Kuso were right to do so. Original research is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia--all material must be cited to credible sources. If the article does not (and a cursory glance suggests that it is poorly cited) it serves as a fairly poor Wikipedia article. Citing Wikipedia in informal discussions is fine, and so I will here :). The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_Wikipedia """ As with any source, especially one of unknown authorship, you should be wary and independently verify the accuracy of Wikipedia information if possible. For many purposes, but particularly in academia, Wikipedia may not be an acceptable source; indeed, some professors and teachers may reject Wikipedia-sourced material completely. This is especially true when it is used uncorroborated. We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. """ As a referee, I would be extremely suspicious of any citation of Wikipedia that used it as secondary, and not primary, material. That said, I lurve Wikipedia, and find it to be an outstanding way of getting at primary references. I recommend it to students as a great way of finding out about the world, and coming quickly to grips with a new concept. Although it does poorly in the case of kuso, it does well in other areas as a quick search engine for relevant references. But past grade school: no citations of encyclopedias. (In the case of kuso, I would turn to Chinese-speaking colleagues for translations of source material, since there appears to be a good published literature on kuso games in Taiwan.) - Alex -- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net //
You may remember a few months ago I posted a call for people to share with me their experience of being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Well, I got a few responses and decided to use communications scholars as an illustration of how the much-debated notion of "notability" sometimes works on WP. The result has now been published in English; French and other versions were published last month. See http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia Cheers, Mathieu On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:23:11 +0200, Christophe Prieur <christophe.prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr> wrote:
Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 'rtfm'. If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not to, then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information.
My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :)
-- Christophe.
Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
Dear Stefano,
Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.
And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept.
In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook).
Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes.
Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
All the best,
Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net
Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
That is a nice overview, Mathieu. Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately there's no way to edit it, or leave comments, to correct its occasional errors... (Essjay did not "repeatedly [use] credentials to bolster his views during content disputes," nor, as you note earlier in the essay, are purported credentials effective at bolstering views on Wikipedia. And it is not true that 'no one knows' why Wikipedia articles appear highly in Google rank for most topics.) SJ On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <oneil@homemail.com.au> wrote:
You may remember a few months ago I posted a call for people to share with me their experience of being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Well, I got a few responses and decided to use communications scholars as an illustration of how the much-debated notion of "notability" sometimes works on WP. The result has now been published in English; French and other versions were published last month. See http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia Cheers, Mathieu
On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:23:11 +0200, Christophe Prieur <christophe.prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr> wrote:
Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 'rtfm'. If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not to, then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information.
My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :)
-- Christophe.
Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
Dear Stefano,
Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.
And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept.
In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook).
Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes.
Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
All the best,
Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net
Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
One thing I have noticed when one writes about WP is that people come forward very quickly to correct perceived errors. Now, I'm always happy to be corrected, and errors can always be amended... but fair's fair, and any criticism should respect the cardinal rule - "reliable sources". I based my comment on Essjay on a NYT article, which is linked to in the piece. If you have a more reliable source, please let me know. I think you are twisting my words a little when you describe my view as saying that "no one knows why WP is ranked so highly" on Google. What I said was: no one knows whether it is because of WP's link structure and because it is frequently updated, _or_ because Google tips the scales in its favour. If you know for sure, please enlighten me. Regards Mathieu On 07/05/2009, at 10:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
That is a nice overview, Mathieu. Thanks for sharing.
Unfortunately there's no way to edit it, or leave comments, to correct its occasional errors... (Essjay did not "repeatedly [use] credentials to bolster his views during content disputes," nor, as you note earlier in the essay, are purported credentials effective at bolstering views on Wikipedia. And it is not true that 'no one knows' why Wikipedia articles appear highly in Google rank for most topics.)
SJ
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, <oneil@homemail.com.au> wrote:
You may remember a few months ago I posted a call for people to share with me their experience of being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Well, I got a few responses and decided to use communications scholars as an illustration of how the much-debated notion of "notability" sometimes works on WP. The result has now been published in English; French and other versions were published last month. See http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia Cheers, Mathieu
On Thu, 7 May 2009 10:23:11 +0200, Christophe Prieur <christophe.prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr> wrote:
Quite agree with Ismael, a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying 'hey dude, look at the dictionary', if not just 'rtfm'. If you think an explanation is needed for some technical term, put it either in a few words or in a whole section, but if you choose not to, then leave it to the grown-up reader to look for further information.
My humble opinion of course but i guess you don't want to annoy those pedantic readers (including reviewers) that share it :)
-- Christophe.
Le 7 mai 09 à 09:50, Ismael Peña-López a écrit :
Dear Stefano,
Had I been the reviewer, I would have made the same observation.
It's not that I don't like Wikipedia: it's that I don't find it appropriate to cite _any_ dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.
And it's not that I take for granted that my potential audience might be aware of all the concepts, but I do take for granted that they are aware of the existence of dictionaries or handbooks (I neither include references to e.g. "Handbook of SPSS usage") they will use in case they don't understand a word or (say) "basic" concept.
In my opinion, it is opposite (as you already point at) to citing specific authors, or even specific methodologies developed by specific authors (following the former example I _would_ cite a statistical methodology developed and explained in a technical paper - but not on a generic handbook).
Put short, I personally find it annoying to find papers that begin as e.g. "Engagment, as it is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, deals with...". I'd rather have the main authors that have developed the term and have it defined by their own quotes.
Of course, strictly personal opinion :)
All the best,
Ismael Peña-López ICTlogy.net
Public Policies for Development and ICT4D School of Law and Political Science Open University of Catalonia _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University E-mail: mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00 Web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php Mail: Coombs Building, 9 Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA
It's true, it's reflexive - one of the interesting effects of wikipedia is that it motivates people who have begun editing the site to take an active role in correcting perceived errors elsewhere in the world... On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Mathieu O'Neil <oneil@homemail.com.au> wrote:
criticism should respect the cardinal rule - "reliable sources". I based my comment on Essjay on a NYT article, which is linked to in the piece. If you have a more reliable source, please let me know.
Sure. The NYT article has the same two problems : an inaccurate claim, and no way to edit the article or provide effective feedback. I offered that feedback to the original author back in the day. It's a lost cause trying to correct inaccuracies that get embedded into presumed-reliable sources. One reason it's not that WP isn't considered one of those -- more transient information should be viewed the same way.
I think you are twisting my words a little when you describe my view as saying that "no one knows why WP is ranked so highly" on Google. What I said was: no one knows whether it is because of WP's link structure and because it is frequently updated, _or_ because Google tips the scales in its favour.
I mean : some people certainly do know. I'm pretty sure Google does not tip the scales in its favour, but don't rely on me -- ask someone at Google. Of course WP is a large part of the searchable web so some algorithms have probable been changed as a result (they tried to rank down mirrors of all sorts at one point, to reduce the *number of times* copies of the same article showed up in results, including wp mirrors. I don't know more than that) cheers, SJ
Dear Stefano, I think this is something that a lot of us have faced in recent times. As increasingly, the wikipedia becomes one of the most comprehensive information archive for certain kind of knowledges, it does appear quite a lot in citation and references. In a recent paper that I was writing about digital cinema in Asia (focusing particularly on the phenomenon of Kuso), my primary definitions of Kuso came from the Wikipedia and it was questioned by the reviewers across the board. My editor, however, understood that the wikipedia was the ONLY credible English speaking source I could find to provide my definition and reference. Most other knowledge of Kuso that I had was from interviews and conversations with people. In such an event, I had to footnote the particular citation and justify why I am using Wikipedia as my source there. I relate this personal anecdote because I think there is something much deeper at stake here: The clash between to industries of knowledge production and the unease over the interplay between the two. I was wondering if the same 'disappointment' had been registered if we were quoting from the Encyclopedia Britannica for example? what is it that makes the larger academic community trust one source as more credible (despite proven results) than the other? How is it that we can't see the irony of disreputing web sources in scholarship on the web? These are more ponderings but well worth investigating, especially in the context of industries of knowledge production and monopoly of information that the publishing industry has had for such a long time and is now feeling threatened by the advent of user generated information spaces. Warmly Nishant On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Stefano De Paoli <Stefano.DePaoli@nuim.ie>wrote:
Hi everybody,
recently I got the following comment from a reviewer of a paper of mine:
" *There is considerable use made of wikipedia and in an academic paper this is disappointing. *"
I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing? and are there limits/rules/good practices that you follow, both in writing and in review processes?
If for example I am writing a paper on the peer review process in Open Source development, I often use wikipedia articles as references for technical terms, like "Diff", "CVS" or "Conditional Programming".
Not being a Computer Scientist myself and thinking that the audience of my writings won't be composed of Computer Scientists as well, I feel that it is good to provide some basic references for complex, technical and often obscure terms. In this cases I prefer to use wikipedia articles, rather than Computer Programming or Operating Systems manuals, because I think that those articles are better and can be easily reached by anybody.
On the contrary I never use wikipedia articles as references for sustaining an academic argument or as references for authors (e.g. I do not use the wikipedia article fo Harold Garfinkel, but I use the book Studies in Ethnomethodology; I never use the wikipedia article for referencing the "situated action" concept, but I use Lucy Suchman book).
So, any thoughts? comments?
S.
-- Italian Conference on Free Software 2009 http://www.confsl.org/confsl09/
Stop the numbers game
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1300000/1297815/p19-parnas.html?key1=1297815...
My institutional page http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Nishant Shah Doctoral Candidate, CSCS, Bangalore. Director (Research), Centre for Internet and Society,( www.cis-india.org ) Asia Awards Fellow, 2008-09 # 00-86-21-66130376
On 7-May-09, at 3:38 AM, Stefano De Paoli wrote:
Hi everybody,
recently I got the following comment from a reviewer of a paper of mine:
" *There is considerable use made of wikipedia and in an academic paper this is disappointing. *"
I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing?
see the The University of Google by Tara Brabazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/University-Google-Education-Post-Information/ dp/075467097X Just the first few chapters should do it. The remainder is academic demography or opinion on this, funding agenda politics and more towards media studies. She also has some very relevant thoughts on the art of lecturing. As a student I can see where I have had cheap hurried and rushed lectures by busy underpaid graduate students based on reading her. She feels we (students) have to be skilled at using a variety of sources. She complains about the level of skills of her first year classes who use google as a source. She made a requirement that her students use a certain number of each of a variety of sources including films, TV, radio, peer reviewed journals, websites etc. In my most recently completed degree a second BA I learned easy legal scholarship. I say easy because it was not an LLB but a BA in legal studies a kind if exposure to legal scholarship. I think my skills at using a library are excellent now because of this second BA. I have found work as a research assistant and consider my self a damn fine library user and yes a great deal of my library use is from home through my libraries web site. But I am searching journals and books not web pages. In my early career I studied science and statistics and did not have much training in research from books and sources found in libraries. Legal studies are strict as an example, where only legislation and written law and in common law cases, are considered sources worthy of use as sources. That taught me a lesson too. I write articles a wikipedia but generally only new ones. I have not yet had to quote myself off Wikipedia for something academic. I have cited my wikiepdia writing in emails. I want to say too the web is how I am learning LaTeX. I have to have my quality filers on when I google such terms as " greek letters in laTeX" and pick only .edu web pages or dot org pages. But that is what I do I write my laTeX document and if I do not know a typesetting code I google t o find it. I also make web pages on technical topics for for others to find. I have used the old bolted down 100 page software manuals in the computer labs but search efficiencies are much better with some kind of computer search. I know it is hard to write papers and where I work we publish numerous in house articles and analysis. If I write a paper for work I have to make sure I find all the other papers done by my workplace on the topic and would be expected to have the bulk of my citations be to our own papers, But they are all on the web. Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa (2006-2010). just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week.
Hello everybody. I think that Wikipedia is great for explaining technical details or information like "GSM" or "Atari", but not as a discussible source like primary literature. (With one exception: if Wikipedia is the object of investigation itself ;-) For people who know how to distinguish details Wikipedia can be a great help: If you know that the explanation of e.g. GSM is correct, so you can trust the Wikipedia article, why should you cite a user manual? My opinion is that the citation of a user manual looks quite strange in this context when you can use Wikipedia as well. Where should be the benefit of using the manual then? And, of course, this whole topic still seems to be a question of socialization and misunderstanding. I suspect that old school researchers tend to use old school methods and sources too often. Best -- Dr. Stephan G. Humer Research Director, Digital Class, University of the Arts Berlin Senior Fellow, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam For detailed contact information see www.humer.tel
Hi everybody,
recently I got the following comment from a reviewer of a paper of mine:
" *There is considerable use made of wikipedia and in an academic paper this is disappointing. *"
I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing? and are there limits/rules/good practices that you follow, both in writing and in review processes?
If for example I am writing a paper on the peer review process in Open Source development, I often use wikipedia articles as references for technical terms, like "Diff", "CVS" or "Conditional Programming".
Not being a Computer Scientist myself and thinking that the audience of my writings won't be composed of Computer Scientists as well, I feel that it is good to provide some basic references for complex, technical and often obscure terms. In this cases I prefer to use wikipedia articles, rather than Computer Programming or Operating Systems manuals, because I think that those articles are better and can be easily reached by anybody.
On the contrary I never use wikipedia articles as references for sustaining an academic argument or as references for authors (e.g. I do not use the wikipedia article fo Harold Garfinkel, but I use the book Studies in Ethnomethodology; I never use the wikipedia article for referencing the "situated action" concept, but I use Lucy Suchman book).
So, any thoughts? comments?
S.
-- Italian Conference on Free Software 2009 http://www.confsl.org/confsl09/
Stop the numbers game http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1300000/1297815/p19- parnas.html?key1=1297815&key2=1569876321&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=25586 362&CFTOKEN=14513600
My institutional page http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Stefano De Paoli wrote:
I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing? and are there limits/rules/good practices that you follow, both in writing and in review processes?
I wonder what the general practice is ... - citing review articles and monographs, but not textbooks ? - citing http://scholarpedia.org, but not http://wikipedia.com ? - citing "private communications", but not "email" ? and - citing sources in the "introduction" and, perhaps, "conclusion" section of an article versus the "research" section. versus, as a few posters have remarked - not providing any citations and sources for general, undergraduate lectures
How many times has this argument found itself on the internet now? Someone should keep track. I've been debating this topic with a friend of mine for quite some time. I believe that (and this is for Sociology) Wikipedia is a nice place to start to look at current definitions of groups and trends. We often start with previous scholarly research on the group we're interested in looking at and typically ignore what the group itself might have to say about themselves. We rarely look first to news clippings, forums, or wikipedia to see what other people are saying about particular groups; or about themselves. I've felt for a long time that this should be where Sociology starts when studying a group of people. I am often criticized for not looking to authority for previous work first; however, my point of contention is that who is a better authority on a group, previous work that is usually years old or current topics on wikipedia about that group that has already lived through the previous work's unintended after effects? I suppose this is tangent to the current conversation but I felt it was worth saying. -- Nick LaLone
On May 7, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Nick Lalone wrote:
How many times has this argument found itself on the internet now? Someone should keep track.
Definitely - it's a nice thesis study on the sociology and culture of knowledge in academia ...
I suppose this is tangent to the current conversation but I felt it was worth saying.
... or in society at large, to wit: Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries Wikipedia: the encyclopedia can be edited anonymously by users Genevieve Carbery Wednesday, May 6, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March. ... [The student,] Mr Fitzgerald[,] said he placed the quote on the website as an experiment when doing research on globalisation. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
I suppose this is tangent to the current conversation but I felt it was worth saying.
... or in society at large, to wit:
Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries
Wikipedia: the encyclopedia can be edited anonymously by users
Genevieve Carbery Wednesday, May 6, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.
The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March.
...
[The student,] Mr Fitzgerald[,] said he placed the quote on the website as an experiment when doing research on globalisation.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
To this, I can only ironically respond with: Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal The Scientist<http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>has reported that, yes, it's true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist<http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>. http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Nick LaLone 512.633.0207
Thank you for this discussion. It has been very useful. A few conclusive comments are maybe needed. Perhaps the fact that there is no agreement on how to use Wikipedia, makes it worthwhile discuss the issue again and again. What I feel is that if there is no agreement among us, that we are supposed to be the Internet researchers, it is quite obvious that when it goes to more "traditional" areas of research there is no acceptance of Wikipedia at all [but this is probably true for other electronic sources]. I still feel that there are good and a bad uses of Wikipedia in academic writing, as also many others have pointed out. And I think that it is we - as Internet researchers - that have to assume the role of tracing the good or acceptable practices for doing so. S. 2009/5/7 Nick Lalone <nick.lalone@gmail.com>:
I suppose this is tangent to the current conversation but I felt it was worth saying.
... or in society at large, to wit:
Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries
Wikipedia: the encyclopedia can be edited anonymously by users
Genevieve Carbery Wednesday, May 6, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.
The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March.
...
[The student,] Mr Fitzgerald[,] said he placed the quote on the website as an experiment when doing research on globalisation.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
To this, I can only ironically respond with: Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal The Scientist<http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>has reported that, yes, it's true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist<http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Nick LaLone 512.633.0207 _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Italian Conference on Free Software 2009 http://www.confsl.org/confsl09/ Stop the numbers game http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1300000/1297815/p19-parnas.html?key1=1297815... My institutional page http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml
On Thursday 07 May 2009, Stefano De Paoli wrote:
I was thinking, what is the general practice in using wikipedia in academic paper writing? and are there limits/rules/good practices that you follow, both in writing and in review processes?
I believe scholars overload the functionality of citations without thinking about it, and so get confused. In my class bibliography policy I note: [[ Listing ones sources can perform at least one of the following functions: a citation identifies the subject of a claim, it substantiates a claim, or it identifies an influence or resource. For example, consider the following three sentences: 1. Lanier (2006) believes Wikipedia is a form of online collectivism. 2. Because science related articles on Wikipedia are roughly as accurate as Britannica (Giles 2005) Wikipedia should be recommended as a reference work. 3. The notion of an Internet encyclopedia dates back to 1993 (Wikipedia 2006i; Wilson and Reynard1994 ). In the first example, the reference is the subject of the sentence, that is all. In the second sentence I am incorporating an external authoritative claim into the body of a (hypothetical) argument. In the third example, I am documenting the influence of Wikipedia (so as not to plagiarize) and providing it as a resource (as it is the best introduction for the reader); but I'm substantiating the claim via an external authority (a primary source). ]] My work typically has dozens of citations to Wikipedia in the first sense, as it is the subject of my work; I would not use it in the second sense unless it is a Wikipedia article about itself; and I would try not to use it in the third sense for fear of prompting the concern you encountered, but Wikipedia article's are becoming the best source of introduction/reference material. In this case, for a paper, perhaps one could have a note saying such references are only provided for reference, or note "technical terms are often well defined at Wikipedia...".
participants (16)
-
Alex Halavais -
Charles Ess -
Christophe Prieur -
Ismael Peña-López -
Jesper Aagaard Petersen -
Joseph Reagle -
Mathieu O'Neil -
Nick Lalone -
Nishant Shah -
oneil＠homemail.com.au
-
Peter Timusk -
Samuel Klein -
Stefano De Paoli -
Stephan Humer -
Steve Cavrak -
Steve Cavrak