Wikipedia as an active historical research forum

I use it only as a quick reference check for basic historical information for when I am too lazy to access a proper historical journal.

A certain individual I spoke to learned I have an admiration for Constantine XI. Few people would have pursued this topic, but he decided to go off and do some research via wikipedia about the man. Then one day he confronts me asking why I would admire the man who refused the Sultan's offer of vassalage in Mistra and instead chose to fight a battle with horrendous odds in Constantinople. Clearly the wiki page did not add context to the article by describing the defences of Constantinople and that the Byzantine/Italian forces actually had some chance of success. I had to fill him in on this fact. He then further questioned my admiration for the man, citing that Constantine XI had wrecked the loyalty of the Greeks to him by going for reunification with the Roman church. I replied, "no, that's just wrong. His brother John VIII did that when he was the Emperor, Constantine merely continued a policy made by his brother". His response to this was "but, wiki says.....". I then gave him a list of half a dozen good scholarly books he could turn to which would back up everything I said.

It is because of incidents like that that I see wiki as a quick source of basic info (e.g. starting and ending dates of a monarch's reign). But I won't look to them for too much more. Oh and another thing, some of the figures they give in the wiki battles section are simply ridiculous and obviously influenced by biased wikipedians.

Hi, Constantine,

Yes, one must be careful with the information of wiki. I believe that the founder of wikipedia says that it is meant to be a good starting point, but the ultimate word on it.

But the experience that I am talking about is actually working out historical disputes with other people writing on the articles. So instead of just passively accepting the information on wikipedia, one is shaping it.

And I recently had two great experiences on this. One was   on an article on Cesar Chavez, American union organizer civil right activist, and and another one on Plutarco Elias Calles, the Mexican president who founded the single-party state in Mexico in the early 1930s.

In both cases I had to negotiate with another editor the language of some controversial points in the articles. The back and forth editing brought some good historical discussions, not only about history but also about its methods. And I learned more about the subject, and found myself reexamining some unacknowledged biases that I had about the two men :)

In other words, it felt like an excellent experience in actually writing history. I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6422877.stm


Ifound this quite interesting!

I use wikipedia all the time, just as people use encyclopedias and have been doing since the 18th century. No information is "accurate", so why does using a website instead of a book mean anything. If you are using an "authoratative book", I'm rather amazed heh.

Know the limitations of wiki, know the dangers and then always check information.

Originally posted by Act of Oblivion � ...I know i maybe seen as sticking to a controversial opinion, but i never ever use Wiki as a source, not even for a 'brief' guide, although i�could not condemn anyone if they did so themselves....it just seems to me that Wiki info is bounded around as if it is definitative, and given the simple and easy�nature of accessing Wiki, it has almost become the 'standard'..yes, i know many users are aware of its�limitations (as Constantine as pointed out) and many can use the site with a well-informed selectivity...but in my experience, many more do not...and therein lies the biggest fault i think....� � ..its simple, i just do not trust any of the info, i may concede that some of the information is accurate, well researched etc but its not for me, i simply prefer to access 'solid, authoratative books' and do my study and research from that standpoint....it may well a be a bit of a traditional, even old -fashioned approach for me, but i find it works best without the danger of�including 'information' found willy-nilly on a website....�

I agree with Acts in this case. Information on wiki is bandied about by most like it is the final word on a given subject - I am guilty of this too, at times. Information from wikipedia should be used merely as a starting point not a true source. In my experience I have had issues with wiki entrees. I, too, like to get information from books and other "authoritative, solid" sources, but alas I'm an old-fashioned type of guy.

 

Originally posted by hugoestr  the power of the instant edit encourages me to do something that I normally don't do with printed paper material: check the references. On printed materials, I pretty much take them at their word

 

...checking the references is something i do as a matter of course with any printed material i am accessing, indeed, this is an active part of my research method, but i can see why using Wiki in such a manner would encourage 'checking', and for that, it must be good practice...

 

Originally posted by hugoestr I would encourage those who doubt wikipedia as a source to approach as a different kind of encyclopedia. Think of it more as an experience than as a reference tool. I believe that many at AE would enjoy it as much as I am enjoying myself.

 

...well, i cannot argue with that statement at all, if it is an enjoyable experience then in some ways, it is to be encouraged....(but i would still not use it!!!!!).....!!!

Edited by Act of Oblivion - 16-Jul-2007 at 14:49

#1 rule when using wiki is to always check the talk page. If there are no comments at all, then the article may have been written by just one person. If there are hundreds of comments and dozens of revisions, be really careful using it.

When it's got a good standards rating and the talk page shows some activity but is not full of revisions and there's alot of agreement on basic points, then you can treat it like any encyclopedia. Just remember that even Britannica gets it wrong and is influenced by agendas sometimes.

In fact, one even has to take authoritative sources with a grain of salt. Scholars are not above flawed interpretations, misrepresentation of data, promotion of agendas and so on.

It's amazing what some get upset about as well. I have noticed those who get most upset about history have no real idea of what they are talking about. History has happened, get over it and get on with learning how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future if they are so upset.

(I may have been distracted or made a wrong post here)


Edited by elenos - 28-Jul-2007 at 14:24

Wiki is still 100% more convenient and you don't have to pay for it!

Originally posted by hugoestr And you have the power of the instant edit if something seems wrong. You can't do that with Britannica. :)

That kind of reasoning presupposes that people who consult Wikipedia are knowledgeable on every single subject. But the problem is that you usually read an encyclopedia to find out things you don't know yet, meaning you won't know that the things you read are wrong.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 29-Jul-2007 at 14:02

The only good thing about wikipedia is usually the links at the bottom of articles from which I have found many a good historical source.

The whole thing is too open to abuse and I don't just mean from vandals. I find, usually hidden away in the talk pages mind, people pushing their various agendas. Of course the discussion that takes place does limit that to some extent, it's still not enough imo. Especially for the Historical Articles where there are usually only 'amateurs' contributing and as such the articles are more susceptible to this agenda pushing.

I do tend to only look up Irish History on wikipedia so I could be a tad unfair. Irish History and Historiography has been rife with agendas over the last thirty to forty years and these agendas tend to spill over into wikipedia. Maybe its not as bad with other countries History?

It's because of this that I usually take anything on wikipedia with a grain of salt, only using it for basic stuff like dates or as a memory refresher on certain topics.