Wikipedia talk:Academic use

message: The Wikipedia can be edited at all times, no matter if you have an account or not. There´s good and bad things to this source so I recommend removing the people who make false edits, or delete most of the helpful info on here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.195.232 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia info 

message: I strongly disagree with the change from Academic use to Academic disclaimer. There is an academic use for wikipedia--it is merely that wikipedia can not be used for all academic purposes.  I am reverting the change, pending discussion on the talk page here. In general, name changes on an important page like this, should not be carried out unilateraly. announcing them ofn the VP is a preliminary to discussion, not a subsitute for it. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert change of page name

message: Not so. I've been a professor, and I did not only permit but encourage its use in student papers for definitions within its field, or even for background, in the sort of subjects it is known to cover well.   Many others do the same. Sources are to be used appropriately, and blanket injunctions are not the sort of way to teach. It's an encyclopedia--they have their purposes. I'd accept "generally considered"  DGG (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is always considered...

message: No point to this, but thought I'd point out how funny it is that I just got an IM from a member of staff at my school who was doing research into using Wikipedia for academic use. He pointed out the inaccuracy in his current version, which was of course edited by an IP at 15:23. The edit was missed in recent changes, and might not have got corrected for a while otherwise. Just interesting, is all —αlεx•mullεr 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism here 

message: Discuss at Wikipedia talk:Researching with Wikipedia#Wikipedia:Academic use. Fences&Windows 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: "This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed." I can not edit this error, because I don't have an account, but I believe "maintain unnoticed" is supposed to be "remain unnoticed" in this sentence. Considering the topic, it is rather funny.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.7.50 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong word 

message: Since my argument essay about is Wikipedia a reliable source or not?, I chose this article to read it ( Wikipedia: Academic use ), in Wikipedia. 
According to my reading, I like the credibility of saying in Wikipedia website “ Wikipedia is not considering a credible source, and Wikipedia is not unacceptable for a research paper." In my opinion, this shows how Wikipedia founders are confident of themselves and their encyclopedia.
On the other hands, usually, Wikipedia displays the information by Written articles, not multi-module like photos, videos, etc. The diagram statistic shows up on the right side of the page is not clear what is it the relationship between Wikipedia Academic use and Judicial Citation to Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.152.116 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Evaluation 

message: There is an ongoing effort to get some scientific Wikipedia articles through traditional academic peer review. This is done using WikiJournals, academic journals that accept submissions from Wikipedia. After dealing with a few dozen articles, the preliminary results roughly suggest that FAs are often OK, while GAs struggle a lot through peer review. See my essay on WikiJournals. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review of Wikipedia articles by WikiJournals