Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? March 25, 2007
Posted by Elaine in Internet.trackback
Wikipedia has become one of top websites visited even though it was created just six years ago. This online encyclopedia is educational and has viewpoints from various sources, but it may also contain inaccurate information. Their unique “edit” button allows any user to edit or add information to the page on any topic.
Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, did not expect this website to contain such erroneous data. He feels that people use Wikipedia, even with its inaccuracies, because there aren’t better similar sources online.
If there’s going to be a free encyclopedia, I’d like there to be a better free encyclopedia. It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing in this way, and yet the project itself has little chance of radically improving.
His discontent is motivating him to create a new online encyclopedia called Citizendium. It will be nonprofit and devoid of ads. It will also enable users to edit and add information. However, contributors will be expected to provide identification. Then, the web page will be given to experts to check for accuracy.
Do you use Wikipedia? Do you think the advantages (large amount of information from various viewpoints) outweigh the disadvantages (inaccurate information)? Would you consider Wikipedia to be a legitimate source for research? Would the new program, Citizendium be successful if created?
I believe that if we need information, we should have accurate information. I don’t trust people to edit/add their own knowledge on these “informative” websites unless they are licensed or expertise in the field with a degree, etc. I personally don’t use Wikipedia for my academic papers.
I would never site Wikipedia in a paper, but for intial research, it’s a great starting point if you’re trying to find out information about a certain topic. I like how anybody can post anything; almost like an open forum of ideas, similar to a blog.
As for Citizendium, I think its a great idea as long as it takes off as a credible resource that is taken seriously and can be used in papers and other academic research. I don’t know how they will generate any money if they don’t use ads. They must have to recieve donations similar to Wikipedia to keep it up.
I trhink this is not true at all because its just such a great site
yes i agree i really like this site this wat i use all the time
you guys are all gay this site sucks really bad i got in trouble for using it
i think that you all are crazy because, I can see that this isn’t a real reliable source. Because of this i never use it. I HATE it. NO ONE SHOULD USE IT!!
its the best site i have ever used
I dont think this is true
YOU KNOW IM SICK OF YOUR CRAP!!! THIS IS SUCH A DUMB CONVERSATION. AND IT MUST END NOW!!!!
jaythen get back to work
I agree with Brian that I would never use Wikipedia as a source in an academic paper. It is very unsettling to me that anyone can edit the information and leaves room for biased opinions of information that should be factual and objective. I do use it as an initial search for general knowledge of a particular subject. I may also use it when I need to think about different viewpoints or opinions of a particular topic.
What I don’t understand about Larry Sanger’s effort is why he feels like he needs to create a totally new free online encyclopedia (Citizendium). Won’t it take just as much effort (or more) to create a new one, instead of just focusing on improving the problems with Wikipedia? If it is possible to make improvements to Wikipedia, I think that would be ideal because Wikipedia already has an established brand name and large pool of users.
We’ve been talking about Citizendium over at Highbrid Nation. Personally I use Wikipedia a lot and I don’t see anything knocking it off its top spot. The features that make Citizendium better may just be the features that keep it from having the same sucess as Wikpedia. There can only be one. Who will it be?
Before this post I didn’t know exactly how Wikipedia worked. Its a scary thought that I could affect the content on Wikipedia. As far as Citizendium, couldn’t they just hire experts to go through the information on Wikipedia? It is difficult to get people to change thier ways. It is already very successful so I think Citizendium would have a difficult time competing against it. I also think they should use ads for money. How do they expect to keep it running?
I wouldn’t cite Wikipedia in a paper, but Wikipedia does mention, on occasion, where they received their information – so I would look, and cite that resource.
I hadn’t seen citizendium before, but a quick visit to the site, and I’m not interested. Its too complicated. The simple, straight-forward format of wikipedia is much more appealing.
I frequently use Wikipedia if I need quick information on something; however, I agree with the other comments in that I do not consider it reliable enough to site in any work that I turn in.
I like fact that it is user-friendly and it does provide useful information, but it is most certainly not a substitute for reputable academic sources. Given that hte accuracy of what people submit is not guaranteed, I believe that Wikipedia is great as a starting point, but nothing more than that.
Also, I think that the founder’s idea to create Citizendium is excellent, particularly since this new project incorporates two aspects that are very important to users: it is free and it is accurate.
I use it as a reference for myself only. I will not quote it for other people. This is because:
a) I already have some basic knowledge for the subjects I search for so I will be able to spot the illogical points in the material and edit them.
b) the content of the material can be changed anytime by anybody so inappropriate content may be displayed at any period of time. Yet nobody will be responsible for the misleading content.
I will quote a web page only if I am convinced that someone can be responsible for the page even it is being changed from time to time. For example on the matter of web security, I will not quote Wikipedia but “Security For Online Payment” from tipskey.com because I feel that the article is OK. If you feel that it is not OK, at least you know that guy in tipskey.com is accountable for it and you can do something.
[...] investigation. If you are interested in Wikipedia, check this blog out, right here on WordPress: The Way Things Work. And then go to Larry Sanger’s (founder of Wikipedia) new online encyclopedia, Citizendium. [...]
I agree with many of the comments above that state that Wikipedia can be a good base for ideas and brain-storming. But that is where it ends as a legitimate academic source.
As a professor, I remind my students that they should never cite a source that is not a) ending with .edu or .gov, and depending on the situation, .org. The date should be recently updated and have an actual author, or organization that takes resposibility for what is said on that site, b) .com stands for commercial, and may have some bias, or the interests of their sponsors in mind, c) real research still requires going to a library or academic journal databases (like JSTOR) and, d) PEER REVIEW does not mean any “joe” can edit something or review it. People who have experience, or a high degree of background research in the particular area of query are considered “peers” with the author. This scrutiny creates an invaluable filter for not only the accuracy of the information, but its relevance (some people cite work done in the 50’s as their sources on Wikipedia, when theory, technology, and practice have revolutionized thinking in a particular area).
So citing one of the Wikipedia citations is really quite fraudulent (to yourself) because you have no way of knowing if the person 1)read the source in its entirety to understand it fully, 2) if they understand whether experts in the field consider the source to be be dated or incorrect in its premise, or 3) If it was really referenced, or just used to lend legitimacy to the Wikipedia author’s argument.
I had to lend my 2 cents here, as I see the use and reliance on this site for academic purposes to be a growing phenomenon, and it cheats students who are paying a lot of money to get at the truth. Understanding sources and their legitimacy is just part of that learning experience they pay for, yet seem so intent on circumventing.
The great thing about wikipedia is that its a single place you can go to to get the information you need, and fast. After every sentence there is a citation where down at the bottom you can find the exact book, article, or “reliable” website it came from. Some of the hardest part of research is just finding good sources to use. Now whenever someone comes across a good source, they can contribute that source to Wikipedia for everyone to use.
Encyclopedia Brittanica for instance has the power to decide what they publish and what not to publish. Their sources are reliable im sure, but once its out that’s it, there’s no going back until the next edition comes out and you have to pay more, and you will never ever get crap from teachers for citing that source. I can safely say that i use Wikipedia everyday, and never have i had a problem with phony information. Great website.
Wikipedia isn’t 100% accuarate but it’s still the best online encyclopedia and I mostly use it for school projects. There are some things in it that are little off. But the most part is that it has the some grammar errors. When I copyed and pasted it on my computer, it nofied that there were many grammar mistakes. So what? Who cares about grammar.
By the way, Wikipedia is the best information site. Not including the seach engines eg. Yahoo!, Google, Ask
You are the only smart person here. Thank You
I agree that wikipedia is the best info site even through that it’s only about 99.9% correct. I’m an author I should know. I use it to publish books and develop ideas.
Wiki’s the best site! period.
Nice response K. I am also a Christian and believe we should feel comfortable in saying it. However, the reason I happen to be on this site because of a school project I had to complete based on reliable sources. In reading your response, I could not help to give my opinion. Many individuals are becoming aware this is not a reliable source based on the site being a free for all to add information at will. If I wanted a buffet, I would have chosen Golden Corral. Nonetheless, when you want quality, one has to go beyond the norm. Also as Christians Citizens, we have a right to voice our opinions by speaking the truth in love. Although this can sometimes be hard however, with Christ all things are possible.
Take care.
I’m skeptical of Wikipedia only because I’m aware that at least 85% of the secular academic world isn’t too keen on Jesus Christ and as moral relativists, they bleed together the black and white and therefore the untrained eye can drown in a shade of grey. I guess what I’m saying is that Wikipedia, which is edited by every Tom, Dick and Harrietta, reflects our society made up of morally relative (and thus contradicting) worldviews. I’m very picky about my sources. I want to know who is editing the information. My library is sacred to me specifically because it contains books by people I’ve researched and come to trust (and no, not all Christians).
On a positive note, Wikipedia can be a good tool to find new words and/or phrases to research. Then there are things I’m just curious about. For example, Chris McCandless from the film “Into the Wild.” I really don’t get obsessed with accuracy in cases like this so Wikipedia works well for me then. I think it also does a good job at showing what subjects and categories relate to what and therefore gives people a quick overview of the entire context of a subject. This works wonders for any philosophical subject or philosopher. The ability to clink on links is nice.