Chances are, if you’re reading this article, you’ve heard of Wikipedia. The eight-year-old reference site, founded by
Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales, has grown to over 10 million articles, with almost 3 million of those articles in English.
But how does all of that information find its way into those articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on the framework of a wiki, a series of Web pages that can be edited by anyone with access to them. The combination of “encyclopedia” and “wiki” gives the site its name.
Wikipedia articles are written and edited by volunteers all over the world. Anyone with internet access can write or edit articles.
Herein is where Wikipedia faces its greatest strengths and weaknesses, and why it draws sharp criticism and even merits a warning about its use.
The format of Wikipedia gives it significant advantages over printed reference works, and even other online reference sites.
Because it is online and has such a large base of users, information can be provided fast, with embedded links to the original sources of information. Articles on major events can appear within days or even hours of the event.
Because of its openness to writers, the content on Wikipedia has the potential to be more objective. It is also this large user base that can find factual errors and statements quickly and correct the information.
And because of the use of hyperlinks to other articles both on and off Wikipedia, readers can check the accuracy of articles and become editors if need be.
On the other hand, Wikipedia has weaknesses, many of which are closely tied to what gives the site its strengths.
The openness of Wikipedia means that at any time, and article could be in an insufficient state. The article may be undergoing a major edit, or it could be the target of blatant or subtle vandalism.
Vandalism involves users posting inaccurate details about a person or subject within an article. Blatant vandalism is often detected fairly quickly and corrected. Subtle vandalism may take some time to be discovered, so the information could go unnoticed and possibly used before it is corrected.
For example, a journalist was listed as a suspect in the Kennedy assassination by a prankster. The information stayed online for four months before being corrected.
Some articles are liable to be incomplete in one of two ways. The article may be in "stub" form, or some of the information may be out of balance.
A "stub" is the beginning of an article, where a user has provided enough information to start the article, and other users then enhance the information and build the article.
Some articles are missing information, such as a significant portion of a person's life, or both views of a significant issue.
Another potential problem is the lack of sources. Some users will post information in an article without listing where they got their information from. This takes away from the credibility of the article.
These weaknesses are what cause scholars to be divided over the usefulness of Wikipedia.
Some view Wikipedia as an information source for those too lazy to do research for credible references. Many professors instruct students not to use Wikipedia as a source when writing a research paper.
Others think that Wikipedia is useful for teaching individuals how to discern if a source is credible or authoritative.
In response to criticism, Wikipedia has addressed concerns over its weaknesses, particularly vandalism and inaccuracy.
The site now locks certain controversial subjects, like Islam and abortion, to prevent a back-and-forth struggle between users trying to add their own views. Only certain users are allowed to access these articles.
Despite its weaknesses and the criticism against it, Wikipedia continues to grow in popularity. In fact, it’s this popularity boom that has contributed to the demise of Microsoft's electronic encyclopedia, Encarta.
Wikipedia seems here to stay, but can it be trusted as a source?
As a primary source, no. Wikipedia even advises users not to cite it as a primary source.
Because of Wikipedia's openness and potential for weaknesses, any researchers should be wary when finding information on the site.
If there are external references listed, the user should check the information in the article against the original source for any inaccuracies. If there are no external references listed for a particular set of information, it is best to pass up the article and look elsewhere.
If the information is confirmed, the original reference should be cited within the research and listed as a primary source. Wikipedia can be listed as a secondary source, if allowed.
With those precautions and steps towards accuracy, it is safe to say that instead of using Wikipedia as a source of information, a user should approach Wikipedia as a source of references.
This way, accurate information can be presented from reliable sources, without fear of human error being reported as fact.
And if you see any inaccuracies in an article, register on Wikipedia and change the errors, but make sure you include your external reference for those who come behind you!
(Information from CNN, ABC News, and Wikipedia contributed to this article)
