Wikipedia talk:Researching with Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Well done! 2 What links here 3 Discussion pages 4 Categories 5 Notable strengths and weaknesses 6 Internal links 7 External links 8 Old reference 9 Citing Wikipedia 10 More pages like this we could use 11 List of places where wikipedia is cited

[edit] Well done!

Brilliant stuff -- Dan and Joe, this is really nicely done. I am particularly impressed with the article's moderate and fluid style: it reads like one of our pages that has been carefully tossed back and forth for months, despite its extreme youth. I am sure it will still merit addition and alteration, but I think it's great that, within a few hours of its creation, the page is already fleshed out and well structured. Jwrosenzweig 04:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second that. Maurreen 06:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thirded; good work! — Matt 18:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for linking this from Citing Wikipedia -- excellent stuff! [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 19:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a great article. I think it will be a excellent article to point journalists at, who query the value of Wikpedia. :ChrisG 12:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a very good summary, and a useful set of guidelines. It covers all the major issues I can think of and offers ways to approach or mitigate them. Koyaanis Qatsi 18:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What links here

One item I meant to bring up at the WikiMeet in Seattle about this topic was the strategy of using the "What links here" link to the side of the page. Even for stubs, substubs & pages waiting to be written this can sometimes lead to a fuller explanation of the subject. Sometimes it can indicate that the article is incomplete in one area or another. I know I've used this trick more than a few times, & it has led to more (& useful) information more often than not. -- llywrch 23:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion pages

Another strategy that I think is worth mentioning is reading the discussion pages. When the topic is controversial, I often find the discussion page is more informative than the main article: it often gives a fairly concise, well-structured summary of the points of disagreement (along with lots of vitriol). --Helperzoom 03:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• The project page makes about half a dozen mentions of talk pages. Do you feel there is something more we should add? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Are categories worth a section? Or do we consider the current situation to chaotic to consider it a useful research tool? :ChrisG 12:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good addition. Just let's be honest about the state of it, that it's work in progress, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notable strengths and weaknesses

The first two sections are written in descriptive mode; the rest in imperative. I find the mixture to break the flow. Is there any way of rectifying this? DanKeshet 20:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Internal links

I'm not sure that this section is relevant to a page that is mostly about cautioning researchers how to use Wikipedia judiciously. Is this really supposed to be "What Wikipedia is good at"? (Apparently User:Beland, unsigned)

• When you write about using a tool, you don't just write a list of cautions. You write about un-obvious positive features, as well. Another example of this is explaining how to start a dialogue with the authors of the article. Yes, I think this belongs here. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I think that we should link from this page to some other websites about evaluating sources. This is based on a suggestion made by an educator I was speaking with, who thought this page might be helpful for assigning to her students. Does anybody know of a good web-based resource for this type of thing? If there are none we are comfortable with, should we write our own? DanKeshet

I added a couple guides that seemed pretty standard, one for websites and one for sources in general. I think we should strongly consider writing our own guides, for both. It would serve a double purpose: it would be useful for our growing body of student readers, who are often still learning about evaluating sources (and whose teachers are nervous about Wikipedia for just that reason), and it would be useful for our editors, as a guide for ourselves in evaluating the credibility and utility of sources. I do not dream that it would end all disputes regarding credibility of sources, but I still think it would be a step in the right direction. DanKeshet 04:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding our own guides on sources, we already have Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could be expanded further. --MarkSweep 08:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll work from there. Thanks! DanKeshet 17:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old reference

"As of November 2004, there have been no English-language WikiReaders published, although at least two have been issued in German, and a number of English-language WikiReaders are in progress." Well, it´s September 2005 now. What has happened? Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any of the English-language WikiReaders coming to completion. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected: apparently two have just come out in the last month. See Wikipedia:WikiReader. German is still way ahead of English, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Wikipedia

Regarding the use of a WP article in a Colorado court — nice find to include in this article, by the way — would it be prudent to remove the specific reference to a profanity? I wouldn't typically think to do so, but in the case of this article, it's something intended for a broad audience that would likely include younger kids doing school research. I'm not sure if any sort of convention exists for the tactful use of profanity (sounds like an oxymoron, eh) on WP, but given the audience of this page, perhaps the point could come across just as well without the specific mention. Deadsalmon 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on this, myself. It's not gratuitous, but I understand your point. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose this. We have our disclaimer, we have the simple Wikipedia, and most of people reading it will not be kids anyway - we should not decrease the functionality for majority for a marginal and uncertain benefit of a minority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Decreasing functionality" is a little far-fetched, but the point's clear, and I agree. Leave it. Deadsalmon 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More pages like this we could use

At the recent Seattle meetup (notes available, including the rationale for this proposal), we came up with some ideas to supplement this page with some more related project pages:

1. Wikipedia:How a Wikipedia article is built, which would explain the various mechanisms that facilitate collaboration (Recent Changes, Watchlists, etc.) and the policies (No original research, Verifiability, etc.) that support reliable content.
2. Wikipedia:How to read an article history, about what to look at in an article history to help evaluate an article. (SchmuckyTheCat said he might get this one started.)
3. Wikipedia:A researcher's guide to discussion pages: how to read discussion pages as part of determining reliability, and how to use them if you have doubts.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of places where wikipedia is cited

I've been asked, repeatedly to come up with a list of academic sources that cite wikipedia. Preferably sources where wikipedia is not itself the subject :) There should be a wikipedia page for that. Mathiastck 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source is probably your best bet, but it doesn't make the distinction of whether Wikipedia is cited for its content or as an example. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a list of sites that cite wikipedia for content. It is important that wikipedia proudly display proof of it's legitmacy :) Mathiastck 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When you say "sites", what do you have in mind? There are a mind-boggling number of Mirrors and Forks; all the legal ones cite Wikipedia for each article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source is mentioned above; there are also pages about press citation of Wikipedia. I'm not sure what additional you have in mind. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)