using Wikipedia for a source

Question

I checked out an ancestral name on Wikipedia then got wondering about WikiTree's rulels regardng sources  & just how or if  Wikipedia could be used?

Comments

I am bringing up a different question.   Is Wikipedia a reliable source, or should we use the sources listed on a Wikipedia page?   The reason I ask this question is that I recently had a discussion with another Wikitreer who indicated that they believed that Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source and was told by their project leader that other sources must be found.

Any thoughts or comments on this?

---

Robin, I think it depends very much on the quality of the Wikipedia article.  I've seen some very good ones, and some very mediocre ones.  I usually check out the sources used for the article, and see if they have used a variety of sources, rather than just one source, that from what can be seen that they are quality sources and use that assessment as a guide to using or not using the article.  If the sources used are available online then I would always look and use them rather than the Wikipedia article.

However, the other issue I find is that while the Wikipedia article might have good sources for the biography they often don't cite anything for the birth, death, marriage dates etc, which are important details to us as genealogists.

It also irks me when the sources used in the Wikipedia article are copied and pasted into the sources section of the Wikitree biography.  It creates the impression that the person writing the biography has looked at those sources, rather than just Wikipedia.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent a wikipedia editor from creating an article about an ancestor and then using a published (but false) source to "document" a disproven royal lineage (for example).   I have done a fair amount of editing at wikipedia, and occasionally I still do.  High-profile articles (like, for example, Thomas Jefferson or the Declaration of Independence) get exhaustively discussed and have the best scholarly sources. However, many 17th-century immigrants have their own wikipedia pages, lovingly created by genealogy-minded descendants, and there is very little quality control for these obscure articles.

To summarize, wikipedia is a low-quality source for WikiTree; it needs to be used with caution, and only when we don't have easy access to other sources; and we should mention the source that is cited on wikipedia for any point that we include in a wikitree profile.

Answer 2

HI Marie,

Thanks for asking your question!  The answer can be found here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Copying_from_Wikipedia.

Essentially it says:

WikiTree and Wikipedia do not have the same copyright licensing policy. On WikiTree, users maintain their copyrights. See the Terms of Service. On Wikipedia, everything is GNU or Creative Commons. Therefore you should not copy back-and-forth between WikiTree and Wikipedia.

Moreover, there's no need to create a duplicate of, say, Wikipedia's Henry VIII page. You should just link to the Wikipedia article from the biography or sources section of Henry VIII's WikiTree profile.

Of course, if you're adding value and integrating other content, there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a source.

Comments

Thanks Eowyn. That will really be all I need - just a place to point to as a biographical source. However I'm not to the point where I'm adding famous people - yet anyway. Just wanted to know for the future.

Thanks again,

Marie

---

Hi Marie,

I use Wikipedia pretty frequently for geographical and historical info, so it's not just about famous people.  As long as you credit the Wikipedia article and link to it, I don't see a problem with using it.

As others have said, though, we need to avoid big copy/pastes of Wikipedia content.  For that, it would be appropriate to include something like, "A substanial article with more interesting information about the town's founding and history can be found on [wikipedia-url-here Wikipedia]."

---

I agree Fred. In fact I just recently went to Wikipedia looking for some background info on a county in Wisconsin c1900, just to get a ""feel"  for what the cousins I was entering would have been experiencing. Unfortunately, neither Wikipedia nor any historical or genealogical site had anything approaching what I was seeking. It wasn't something that was vital to my research so I'm going back to adding cousins......

Marie

---

One thing to remember is that we can edit Wikipedia, too. When I find errors or omissions in Wikipedia, I'll edit the Wikipedia article to improve it. (Although I haven't gone so far as to cite a WikiTree profile that I've worked on as a source on Wikipedia.) So our work can improve the quality of Wikipedia as a source, if we take the extra few minutes to fix it.

Greg

Answer 3

All good Genealogy has a Research process that you as a reader can follow.

One process to follow is GPS - Genealogical Proof Standard

In the GPS process you evaluate every source and what it claim in a consistent way ==> then based on that you write the conclusion ==> that will tell you if you can use a fact from Wikipedia or not and you can trust the conclusion you have done

process full size

Answer 4

As a teacher, I was skeptical of Wikipedia information and told my students that they had to use other sources. At the time, anyone could edit anything and not much was documented. The site has, however, gotten much better about their standards. Still, I take all information there with a large dose of skepticism and check out sources cited there as well. I read an article about an infamous relative and found it to be somewhat biased and lopsided in the sources it cited. While the information gave me direction, I would not trust it as the sole source for anything. The upside, however, is most of the photographs can be used under common use licensing.