Exploring the Reliability of Wikipedia as a Source
Written on
Chapter 1: Introduction to Wikipedia's Reliability
The question of whether Wikipedia can be considered a trustworthy source has sparked much debate. Many experts advise against citing it in academic work.
This reflection was prompted by a recent experience: after submitting an article, I received a courteous note from the journal's editor recommending against the use of Wikipedia as a reference. This isn't the first time I've encountered this advice, and I’ve often echoed it myself.
My background includes years of teaching educational psychology and family dynamics, alongside courses in religion. With a doctorate in literacy education and psychology, as well as a Master’s in Historical Theology, I was well-prepared for my role. I particularly enjoyed teaching courses such as the Psychology of Religion and educational psychology, where I also guided preservice teachers in developing their writing skills.
Throughout my tenure, I was well-liked by students, often recognized for my lenient grading policy. My academic pursuits led me to become a researcher and writer, eventually presenting at the International Whitehead Conference in Austria and contributing to an academic book on Whitehead's philosophies.
The institution where I taught upheld stringent academic standards, emphasizing extensive writing across all courses. Most students submitted term papers averaging 15 pages, formatted in APA style. They were educated on the importance of utilizing credible sources, including lessons on recognizing bias and propaganda. A key takeaway from these writing classes was clear: NEVER cite Wikipedia, as it was deemed unreliable by our academic community.
Despite this, I often received papers that referenced Wikipedia articles. I would typically deduct points for such citations, adhering to the college's stance on its reliability. However, I found that many of the quoted materials were relevant and accurate, prompting me to conduct further research into Wikipedia itself.
Section 1.1: Understanding Wikipedia's Framework
So, what exactly is Wikipedia? According to a PBS resource designed for educators, several key points outline its nature:
- Wikipedia operates as an open-source encyclopedia with no central oversight.
- Anyone can contribute to or edit its articles.
- The content is generally accessible to the public.
- Its policies aim to promote fairness, impartiality, and sourcing from documented materials.
- Volunteer editors have the authority to delete articles and restrict users who violate these policies.
- The open nature of the platform can lead to misinformation or trivial entries.
- Hoaxes have been known to appear on the site.
- Despite these concerns, PBS claims its reliability is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica, although I remain skeptical about that assertion.
Section 1.2: A Brief History of Wikipedia
Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, evolving from earlier projects aimed at enhancing knowledge sharing. Launched in 2001, it started as an initiative to improve Nupedia, an earlier free online encyclopedia. The platform was designed to encourage user contributions and expedite content creation.
By the end of its first year, Wikipedia had amassed 20,000 articles. As of June 2024, the English version boasts over 6.8 million articles, created by 812,636 registered editors and numerous anonymous contributors.
Chapter 2: The Critique of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has its drawbacks. LibGuides highlights several issues:
- Anyone can create or alter articles, leading to inconsistencies.
- Articles lack scholarly credibility since contributor identities are often unknown.
- Content is constantly evolving, making it a work-in-progress, which can be both enlightening and frustrating.
- Vandalism is a risk, as some users alter information for fun or to mislead.
- The target audience varies, resulting in articles that may use technical jargon or be overly simplified, creating potential confusion.
Additional concerns have been raised about citing Wikipedia. Even its founder, Jimmy Wales, advised against using it for academic projects as early as 2006, according to a report from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Section 2.1: The Positive Aspects of Wikipedia
Despite its flaws, Wikipedia has notable strengths:
- It is entirely free, offering information on countless topics to anyone with internet access.
- The content is regularly updated, in contrast to print encyclopedias that are typically revised annually.
- Wikipedia serves as a useful starting point for research, providing background information and keywords for further exploration.
- Citations within articles enable deeper investigation into subjects of interest.
Some sources, like the Sydney Morning Herald, have even posited that Wikipedia represents humanity's most significant attempt at creating a comprehensive knowledge base. With its expansive reach, it far surpasses the Encyclopedia Britannica in size.
Research has shown that Wikipedia can be particularly accurate in certain fields, such as knee arthroscopy and cancer information, often matching the quality of expert-maintained databases. A review published in Nature found Wikipedia's accuracy on par with Britannica, while a study by Oxford University determined it to be more reliable.
Section 2.2: The Bottom Line on Wikipedia
In conclusion, while Wikipedia's accuracy may vary, it is generally a reliable source of information. Critics note that its accuracy rate stands around 80%, while other sources achieve around 95-96%. It’s worth mentioning that similar concerns have been raised about the reliability of some academic sources as well.
As the debate continues, experts suggest that Wikipedia may not be as unreliable as previously thought. With just a little research, one can find numerous studies affirming its general accuracy, even if using it in academic contexts requires caution.
Ultimately, I decided to allow my students to cite Wikipedia, provided they supported their claims with additional credible sources. Wikipedia can serve as a general overview, and its articles often include links to further resources for verification.
For my part, I don’t hesitate to cite it when appropriate. After all, it is one of 58 million articles available on the platform, a testament to its extensive reach and influence as the eighth most visited website globally. It's likely that you, too, have turned to Wikipedia on occasion.
The editor's advice resonates with merit. The intricacies of Wikipedia's reliability make it a complex issue. While it presents a mixed bag of information, we must evaluate it based on its merits and the context of our research.