It’s not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.
“As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills,” Stagnitta wrote. “One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site.”
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too far for most of us. —Al Fasoldt
—Librarian: Don’t use Wikipedia as source (Post-Standard)
I’m teaching a brief unit on Wikis in “Writing for the Internet” this fall.
I disagree with Stagnitta’s comment, “there is no editorial review of the content”. I have myself edited many documents, and I have seen pages that I created modified greatly over a short amount of time.
Wikipedia is not the place to consult for original research, but then again, neither is a traditional printed encyclopedia. Wikipedia is very useful when looking for quick background on breaking news, since the chances are that someone who already knows more about the subject than you do will have been there before you and at least posted a few links.
A Wiki is a consensus builder. People who disagree on a point will keep changing each other’s language until everyone is either satisfied or the dominant view takes over. A small number of dedicated geeks can have an overwhelming effect on Wikipedia. Somehow I doubt that the entry on the Amish doesn’t include a lot of input from people who are living on Amish farms. It’s important to be aware of that kind of bias.
Obviously, Wikipedia doesn’t have the authority of a peer-reviewed academic article. I do find it useful as a research guide, though; for instance, the Wikipedia article on a particular subject may include references to names and lines of thinking that I can later use when doing library research.
View Comments
Well, what do you know! Thanks for tracking down that throw-away reference of mine, JM.
I was pointed to your entry by a commenter on one of my posts, on the same topic. The issue of bias is indeed something to keep in mind, you're absolutely right. The Amish reference is a good one, and being someone who grew up in Amish country I know a fair bit about them...so I looked in the wikipedia on a whim, to see how accurate it all was. Wow - it contains some of the more specific, historical information that people don't tend to know about. I'm from the county mentioned in the entry on the Nebraska Amish (Mifflin Co, PA), so I read the entry, matched the info to what's in my "history of mifflin co" books and census info, etc, and it is 100% accurate. I know that's not the point of your post, but I thought it was pretty funny that wikipedia authors have even gotten the entry on the _Amish_ correct! :)
A note on the Wikipedia editing experience...
A couple of years ago, I was hired by a British publisher to write a book chapter on the Indus Valley Civilization. I completed the article, but the publisher went bankrupt.
So I posted it to Wikipedia ... just to see what would happen, I suppose.
There have been dozens of edits, including some that quite rightly went after me for failing to adhere to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) rule. On the whole, I have to admit that the editing process has greatly improved what used to be "my" article.