One of the lecturers once reminded a student for using a reference from Wikipedia. The lecturer considered Wikipedia to be an unscientific reference and the source could not be trusted. The student has been looking for references in reading books, journals, and also in various other libraries, and the results are zoned, so he can't help but be forced to take them from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which in addition to its advantages as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia also has many shortcomings. One of them is a large amount of false information circulating. Wikipedia uses wiki technology that allows anyone to add, modify, or delete article content with only internet capital. So, those who already have writing and literature skills, on average, can deliberately create fake information on Wikipedia.
Apart from that, another shortcoming of Wikipedia is the quality of the Wikipedia editor. Many articles have been published by editors whose job is to review written information, but they are not experts in this field.
Another reason, it is not allowed to take references from Wikipedia is because they are not "primary reference sources" but tertiary. Some articles may contain errors so you should not use Wikipedia for important decisions.
Wikipedia itself admits that the content contained in its online database has a weakness: "while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish ... use [wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't. "
Simple, Wikipedia states that it does not force readers to believe it as reference material: "we do not expect you to trust us." It is also said that Wikipedia is not a primary reference (not a primary source), this is because many articles contain errors so that they cannot be used as a source for decision making: "because some articles may contain errors," you should "not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions. "
The New York Times says that Wikipedia editors can be divided into two groups, the first to be deleteionist and the second to be inclusionists. Deleteionists feel that Wikipedia is not a place for SPAM so they do a too strict review and delete a lot of information, while inclusionists, on the other hand, feel that information can be revised many times so that it becomes quality information. This can create a lot of untrusted information, whereas a deleteionist will create limitations on the information that experts in their respective demographics might convey.
Is the information on Wikipedia really untrustworthy and referenced? All of the explanations that point to that question illustrate that Wikipedia can be a source of misinformation, but that isn't all that way. On Wikipedia, there are also many articles that are official and even officially and permanently protected from the government. But with that, still, all of them cannot be used as primary references for important documents such as papers to theses.
If students still want to choose Wikipedia as a reference for looking for references, then use it as introductory information. You can get to know at a glance the information you are looking for, then look deeper into other sources that are already and truly trusted, such as the main book.
With the many weaknesses of Wikipedia, as a student who always makes assignments with accountable references, do you still use it as the main reference? I suggest you no longer make Wikipedia the main reference in your writing.
