Comments on: The Real Wikipedia https://digitalwriting.site/2026/03/21/the-real-wikipedia/ Experiments in Digital Content Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:57:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: goosefeet22 https://digitalwriting.site/2026/03/21/the-real-wikipedia/#comment-768 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:57:59 +0000 https://digitalwriting.site/?p=2066#comment-768 I too have been known to scroll right down to the bibliography section of a Wikipedia page. Ever since I learned that “hack,” probably from a reposted tweet, I haven’t looked back. Finally, having a book tell me it was okay to do made it feel a whole lot less like a sneaky task, but as a legitimate way to start my research. I think you situate it perfectly. It is not the perfect source, and there is almost no way to apply it as just a source (because of its tertiary status), but it is a way to find sources. Being a responsible user is what’s important and honestly I think that if that idea was what was taught in middle and high school, we would all be much better researchers.

]]>
By: tacobell-CEO https://digitalwriting.site/2026/03/21/the-real-wikipedia/#comment-761 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:17:25 +0000 https://digitalwriting.site/?p=2066#comment-761 I guess it is time for me to make a confession. I have always used Wikipedia as the first step of research. Especially as I progress in my classes and start researching more and more particular things, it is essential to my process. Most of the topics I am looking into do not have a encyclopedia entry in a more traditional publication. The first step to research is gaining a baseline, surface level information about a topic before you dive deeper into the specifics. Of course, this does not mean I use Wikipedia as a source, and I always find a real source before using any information I learn on WIkipedia. I just do not understand what other option there is, and I do not think I have ever been presented one besides, “never use Wikipedia.”

]]>
By: davidninja https://digitalwriting.site/2026/03/21/the-real-wikipedia/#comment-684 Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:41:10 +0000 https://digitalwriting.site/?p=2066#comment-684 “Academic boogeyman” seems pretty accurate for describing Wikipedia’s reputation. Teachers had their best intentions when telling us not to use it, maybe they were told not to tell us, but now I believe it is safe to use (for the most part). Caulfield and Wineburg did a good job not only explaining how to use the site efficiently for research, but also the changes the site is making for accurate information. What the authors teach in this chapter should be taught to students who are writing their first paper, because this is the kind of stuff that will help them in future essays.

]]>