Sunday, May 26, 2013

Wikipedia as a scholarly source?

As you may know, I am completing my Masters degree in nursing leadership and management. If you have ever completed any post-high school education you know that performing research and writing papers is a HUGE part of this. One of the first thing my institution made very clear was the Wikipedia was NOT a credible source to use in this research. As I had already come to this conclusion myself, it as not a hardship for me to refrain from citing this site in my graduate level papers. 

The premise that just anyone can edit an entry and still claim it to be an expert entry is ludicrous. Now, it has come to light that there is an individual who appears to have a vendetta against pagan authors that has been getting the entries for these authors deleted. This person, writer Robert Clark Young or “Qworty” as he was known, has succeeded in getting quite a few entries deleted. It is for reasons such as this that I have never regarded Wikipedia as a site worthy of even my most mundane searches. For all I know, the entry I am using to expand my knowledge of a subject could have been written by some kid with an overactive imagination and a bone to pick with someone. 


  1. I actually like using Wikipedia for quick searches, but usually confirm everything I learn there by reputable sources if deeper research is necessary. From my experience most articles are not really worse than the books published on that matter - being printed does not make anything more reliable.

  2. Like Diandra I use Wiki if its a quick search. Often there will be a link to a more reputable website or source given if needed.

  3. Hi! I was referred to your blog by Activism Of Care, which is one of my favorite YouTube channels.

    Anyway, about Wikipedia, I agree with the the commenters. I use Wikipedia for quick searches, and check out the bibliography for further research.