Using Wikipedia As a Research Tool

Whether you are researching a topic on the Internet or you are reading a book, Wikipedia is a useful reference. It is the largest reference work in history, and it’s also free to use. Wikipedia is written by a community of volunteers, and it is a wiki-based editing system.

It’s a free, collaborative encyclopaedia written in 300 languages by volunteers around the world

Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is a free, collaborative encyclopedia written in over 300 languages by volunteers around the world. It is maintained by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. This nonprofit organization is mainly funded by contributions. The foundation also hosts other projects, such as Wikiquote and Wikibooks.

Wikipedia was designed to be free, open, and unbiased. It was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. They launched it as a complement to Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia. Sanger resigned from Nupedia on March 1, 2002.

Wikipedia’s policies require users to provide verifiable sources of information. They also require users to maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia’s policy states that “principles matter more than literal wording.” It also states that “pettifogging is not welcome.”

Wikipedia’s openness and popularity have drawn criticism. Some have said that the project is an experiment in different systems. Others have praised the openness of the site.

Wikipedia has been accused of bias. However, some have defended the project by saying that the site is a collaborative creation.

It’s a great starting point for research

Using Wikipedia as a research tool can be helpful, but only in the right context. While Wikipedia is an excellent source of background information, it is not a good substitute for a formal book or reference source. Rather, it should be used as a stepping stone for your research project.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it is a comprehensive database of information about a topic. But, the quality of the Wikipedia entries on academic subjects can vary a lot. In general, Wikipedia entries are more summary than in depth, whereas scholarly encyclopedias are much more detailed.

Wikipedia is also an excellent resource for researching topics that are not your specialty. It can help you determine the basics of a topic, including basic categories, keywords, and a general history of the topic. It can also serve as a gateway to other texts.

Wikipedia has a “see also” section, which may include related topics. It also has an external link section, which is a list of links to other websites. These external links can help you find other credible sources. You may also want to look at the references section of the article, which is a list of various sources that the article was based on.

It’s a work-in-progress

Unlike a traditional encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It is a community effort that is always moving. There are no set deadlines.

Wikipedia has a collaborative community of thousands of editors. This is why some people may have different goals or approaches. They may not be building an encyclopedia, but rather advocating a specific position. It’s not uncommon for newcomers to need a little time to get acclimated to the community.

While the goal of Wikipedia is to be an unbiased, open-access summary of reliable knowledge, it’s not always accurate. This is because Wikipedia relies on human editors for content decisions.

The Wikipedia community has formulated policies that emphasize integrity in content. These include collaborative editing and avoiding personal attacks. It’s important for editors to be collegial and not get upset if they lose the chance to create a new article.

Wikipedia is also susceptible to vandalism. This is particularly common on controversial topics. For instance, readers have inserted churlish edits on the George W. Bush article.

It has a problem with systemic bias

Despite its stated goal of being a neutral source of information, Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias. Its lack of articles on women and other underrepresented demographics, and its lack of diversity in its editor community, reproduces imbalances in the site.

Systemic bias on Wikpedia may take the form of gender, racial, or geographical bias. It may also take the form of ideological bias. There are some ways to counter bias in Wikipedia. These include complaints, canvassing, and counter-editing. Depending on the type of bias, some of these methods may be more effective than others.

One of the most obvious examples of systemic bias on Wikipedia is its gender gap. In 2011, women made up 8.5 to 15 percent of active contributors. However, the gap has not gotten any smaller over time.

This imbalance has a negative impact on the content coverage of the site. In addition, the site is lacking articles on women, women’s history, and minority demographic groups.