Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Hatcher]

If I take a paragraph from wikipedia, what is the exact quotation method?

[Skipperoo]

For what, an academic essay? If so I'd very strongly recommend against quoting it at all, and find a different source that says the same thing to use instead.

However, the referencing method should be the same as if it were any other website:

1) Quote the passage, e.g. A BBC News article on blahblah states "blahblahblah"
2) In brackets, give the name of the website/organisation and date the article was written; e.g. (BBC News, 2006)

Assuming you're using the Harvard referencing system.

[northway]

Backtrack the sources from Wiki and use a real source.

[le-paul]

wiki is good and bad.

Its good because it gives most people an idea of what its like to be an academic and for sharing information.
Its bad because its poorly referenced.
Its good because if we scroll to the bottom, we can see where the original source came from and use this to read, learn and maybe quote.
Its bad because often the quotes wont match the original source.

For example you may read that charles darwin said dogs evolved from rats in 'X' book, but when you look at the quote in 'X' book it wont be there. However you will find that this quote is in another book of his and then be able to quote it.

Long answer short - go to the direct source thats referenced at the bottom and check it before you use it as chances are, it wont be correct reference and you could potentially fail your paper.

once youve done that, it should be the same as referencing from 'google scholar' (ie date accessed and website address).

[FMPJ]

Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for academic work.

[silkhighway]

[interestedinhanguk]

[RMNC]

The fact that wikipedia is so scrutinized is reason enough for it to be considered fact. 99.9% of articles are correct, is my guess. Just try adding in some tiny amount of false information to a random article and chances are 10 seconds later it's not going to be there.

[deizio]

On top of issues associated with being written / compiled by anonymous volunteers, Wikipedia is a "tertiary source" - that means that as far as sourcing / credibility goes, it's on a par with your paper if you're writing a simple report or essay (would you quote something from a classmate's paper?), and below it if you're creating something offering original ideas or interpretations at an academic / thesis level. professors will be aware of this. As others have said, reference the original quote or passage, and do so without actually seeing it with your own eyes at your peril.

I will say that a) Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, b) WP sourcing and citations are far better than they used to be, and c) I'm a lot less fussy if students reference pictures, charts and graphs from Wikipedia (e.g. make their own version of a supply and demand model and reference it as "adapted from Wikipedia, date accessed etc) than general content.

[languistic]

Don't use Wiki specifically; go to the source from the citation link, then use that. If there is no source, don't use it.

[FMPJ]

Of course Wikipedia is fantastic, but there's some chance that at any given moment you will be quoting vandalism. Go to the footnotes and track down original sources. It's simple and required at any academic institution that wishes to remain anything other than a laughingstock.

[lifeinkorea]

I think it depends on the strength of the information.

1) The sun is the center of the solar system
2) A tonic is the "tonal center" of a western musical scale
3) "biopsy samples obtained from the center of the lesion are likely to contain" - p.16 (Principles and practice of gastrointestinal oncology)

All three examples above use the word "center" in different ways.

In 1, it is considered common knowledge now. Wikipedia is great for this. It's simple, direct, and to the point of the obvious stuff we should ALREADY know.

In 2, it is also considered common knowledge, but in a select area. In this case, paraphrasing and citing Wikipedia or any other wiki site should be sufficient.

In 3, I may not have quoted breakthrough information, but the point is it's information that doesn't refer to any concrete conclusions or understandings. We would have to credit the author for validity in their assertion. For that, I feel we need to cite sources.

[FMPJ]

[lifeinkorea]

FMPJ,

Your short retorts are too short to know what you are referring to.

[nathanrutledge]