What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia defines itself as “a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project.” As you probably know, it is popular with university students as a research tool.
It’s also easy to forget that Wikipedia articles can be written and edited by anyone (with some exceptions):
“Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia.”
I’m doing some research for a paper. Can I cite Wikipedia as a source?
The short answer is: Ask your instructor.
The long answer is: There’s a huge debate right now on whether Wikipedia is an acceptable source for college and university students. It’s a controversial topic, and there hasn’t been any definitive consensus so far.
We’ve simplified and summarized the arguments on both sides of the debate. You probably have your own opinions, so feel free to leave a comment below.
1. Content
-
For (a.k.a. in favour of allowing students to cite Wikipedia): Wikipedia has a LOT of information, and it is a good starting point for finding other information. A well-written article can lead the reader to useful primary and secondary sources.
-
Against: Wikipedia has TOO MUCH information that overwhelms inexperienced researchers.
2. Reliability
-
For: The sheer volume of information on Wikipedia trains the reader to think critically about an article’s validity and biases.
-
Against: Anyone can write and edit articles. Contributors don’t have to be experts, and there’s no way to check an author’s credentials. Also, many articles don’t cite their references, making it difficult to determine their validity.
3. Vandalism
-
Against: Because most articles are open to editing, they are vulnerable to hoaxes and malicious comments.
-
For: Wrong information and malicious comments are easily and quickly deleted by editors and other readers.
4. Review process
-
For: Wikipedia provides dynamic and timely information. Events and discoveries can be documented and updated as they occur.
-
Against: Wikipedia entries undergo no rigorous review process, unlike journal articles. Popular entries probably get reviewed and revised regularly, but a majority of articles don’t get the same peer-review treatment.
5. Change over time
-
Against: Entries change over time. What you cite today may be gone tomorrow.
-
For: Older versions of each entry go into an archive. You can cite different versions of the same entry, not just the latest one.
6. Linking
-
For: Internal links connect each article to related ones that may be valuable to your research.
-
Against: Link-surfing can be distracting and inefficient. See the webcomic below:
(Original webcomic from xkcd.com.)
That’s a lot of things to consider. But what’s the conclusion? Should students use Wikipedia or not?
Check with your instructor to be sure of his/her policy. It’s probably safe to say that Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, especially if you have no idea where to begin. If you find some useful information, always try to find a primary or reliable secondary source to corroborate it – in short, make sure the information is reliable before you use it. And if you can find a book or scholarly article that says the same thing as the Wikipedia entry, cite that instead.
What do YOU think about Wikipedia? Leave us a comment below!
