Wikipedia

The Wikipedia: A good source of information?
The most significant Wiki in the world is the [|Wikipedia], the huge online encyclopedia being compiled by thousands of contributors around the world, in many different languages. It is apparently one of the most widely used sources of information by the public, providing facts very quickly on almost any topic, including many that a traditional encyclopedia might not cover. Google links to it for information on scores of topics. One question, however, is whether the quality of its material is equivalent to that of other sources, like commercial encyclopedias and books. There have been some instances where the information has been biased or even inaccurate. With this "[|About]" hyperlink, you can read how the Wikipedia is supervised, how it functions, and what philosophies guide its compilation of information. . In the space below, indicate how you feel about the Wikipedia as a source of information. What do you see as its strengths and as its weaknesses? (D. Tiene).

Start your comments here (and try not to erase the Wikipedia logo! :)

I am a fan of Wikipedia. It has many strengths like its ability to gather so much information from all over the world. It is a free and easy to use tool that people must like because it is rated one of the top ten websites according to the article by Dan O'Leary. The biggest concern that I have always had with Wikipedia is the reliability of the content. So with that in mind, I use it carefully. I have personally viewed pages that have been corrupt with foul and very inappropriate language. For this reason, I would not have younger children use a source like this. However, I think it is a great place for older students to start their research. Note that I used the word start. I have my kids start research by reading what Wikipedia has to say. I encourage them to look for key points, sources or information that they can write down that will direct where they will go next in their quest to find valid sources to begin their research. It is so easy to find great sources using Wikipedia. It is a fantastic place for students to begin research. I also find the Wikipedia is a good place for students to get some basic background knowledge on a new topic that they are unfamiliar with. For example, if a class is studying something in history that they are unfamiliar with, this would be a great place to gather some basic background knowledge to help them make connections to what they are learning. It was interesting to read the About tab in Wikipedia. I never really paid attention to how they try to protect their website. I didn't even realize that filing a complaint or red flagging material that doesn't seem right was possible and such an easy process. I couldn't believe how many were done today. It is good to see that people care. I think the diligence of the people behind Wikipedia as well as the large amount of people that contribute to the site make it an important tool in education. I laughed out loud when the article noted that the accuracy of this free tool was not that far off of Encyclopedia Britannica. (Patti Naim)

If I were an educator and asked my students to reference material, I would not accept Wikipedia as the **__sole__** source of information. Here’s why: (S. Tornero)
 * 1) 1. Never rely on one source for information.
 * 2) 2. Most of the contributors have their own agenda resulting in edit bias.
 * 3) 3. Malicious entries go unnoticed by Wikipedia for months.
 * 4) 4. Seems to be hardly any diversity among their editors.
 * 5) 5. You can’t rely on something when you don’t know who the author is.
 * 6) 6. Wikipedia itself states that the information can’t be trusted.

Edith Serkownek: As a librarian, I often talk with students about the value of Wikipedia as a good place to begin one's research, especially when a topic is largely unfamiliar. In the past I often recommended a general encyclopedia or juvenile literature as a similar 'primer' on a new topic. However, I recommend that Wikipedia be viewed as a jumping off place for research, rather than the landing zone. A well-written Wikipedia article should contain a number of citations which can be found and cited in a paper. However Wikipedia entries themselves may well be viewed by instructors as being without true authorship and therefore not a source which they wish to have cited in a critical research paper. Undoubtedly, Wikipedia has made our information landscape a much richer one and it is often the first place that I do when I want to find a quick fact (Is that actor dead or alive?) or a summary. As S. Tornero notes, however, Wikipedia is only a single source of information (despite the multiple contributors, the outcome is a single document) and any information found in it must be corroborated by other sources.

Liz Bode: Edith, I too am a librarian and I use almost the exact same terminology to tell students about Wikipedia, being a great place to jump off, but not where you want to land! I always point the references section and show students how to use that to get to good sources of information, that they might not easily find in a database or a google search. I always think of an encyclopedia as an umbrella of information from which you can narrow your topic.

It's nice to read these positive comments about the Wikipedia, since for many years I feel there was a bias against it. I think this was due to it's unconventional approach to soliciting information from anyone (not only "experts"), its minimal editorial oversight, and its open-ended nature. But as the Wikipedia has grown and succeeded, it has mollified many of its harshest critics. Most of us, like Edith, can't resist turning to it for basic information and for trivia. I use it often to explore pop culture material that interests me, about actors, musicians, politicians, etc. I think one of its strengths is that it includes material that was once excluded from formal encyclopedias because it was considered too trivial. But I personally love trivia, so... I think it has the potential to make us all better informed. The comments so far address the PROCESS of using the Wikipedia (and I agree that it is best utilized as a starting point, not the sole or definitive source). What about the CONTENT? Do you think that it works best for certain types of information. Are there types of topics for which the Wikipedia's limitations might need to be kept in mind? (D. Tiene)

Like most everyone else I have used Wikipedia as a starting point not a destination. That being said I also love trivia and I think Wikipedia is one of the best sources of trivia. Wikipedia is a treasure trove for finding information about old television series (which I watch late at night) right down to the titles of the episodes. There are also great resources to be found at the bottom of every page if you want to dig a little deeper into the actors or producers and directors. Wikipedia is also a good source for quick geography information; let's face it the world is a rapidly changing place and many of the countries our parents remember don't exist any more and a source like Wikipedia can give you the short version of how countries have changed in recent history. I guess the content I go to most on Wikipedia is about the information that is cumbersome to look up in a Google search. If I look up 'types of houses' in Wikipedia I get a list. If I do a Google search I get more information but now I have to look around. Just depends on how deep you want to go at that moment as to whether I go Wikipedia or full-on search engine. I rarely use Wikipedia to look up current events. This is definitely as area where it would be best to stir clear of Wikipedia and go with more authoritative sites. (S. Daniels)

===One strength of Wikipedia is its timeliness. Most information is new and current. Because of all those unknown editors, Wikipedia does get current topics of discussion out there faster than the traditional online encyclopedia. I seems that the other online encyclopedias still use a systematic schedule with the entire encyclopedia being revised at some point in time. With Wikipedia, almost all articles may undergo revisions at any time, keeping them fresh and hopefully accurate. ===

===Another thing I like about Wikipedia is that most material is written in a way that’s easy to understand although it may not be accurate. All those editors must do a lot of proofreading in their spare time, taking articles and synthesizing them into layman’s terms. In comparison, the Encyclopedia Britannica employs only twelve copy editors, although reading is easier, some theories are still difficult reads. Wikipedia also has a simple English extension that may male difficult articles easier to understand. (S. Tornero) ===

I think that Wikipedia is a good starting reference point. It gives a place to start from and help make a decision about how to proceed with gaining further information about he researched topic. I do not think that using Wikipedia as the sole source of information is the best idea. As mentioned it has had had inaccurate information and bias in some of the information written. I think that a definite strength of Wikipedia is that it offers a vast amount of information and can be contributed by individuals from around the world. Wikipedia is also right at the click of a button and more readily available than the traditional print type encyclopedia that would require a trip to the local library. The weakness, in my opinion, is that with having so many contributors there is the possibility for error and misinformation provided. However, overall I think it is a great starting point for students because it can give them good information to then go and research if it is accurate or guide them to other resources. (E.Mitchell)

Wikipedia is probably my favorite point of reference on the internet. I can usually grab 99% of the material I need on a topic directly from this site. Wikipedia has many authors and contributors and the great part about the site is that not just one of those previously mentioned people write the pages. The idea of Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and therefore many authors and contributors write on the same article and check for errors on other pages. They have some people who just read and fact-check articles throughout the website so it can be safe to assume that MOST information is accurate. There are, however, a few times where inaccuracies slip through the cracks unfortunately, With the culture of collaboration, there are always people who like to hinder progress more than help it. In my opinion, these internet trolls are the biggest problem with Wikipedia. In terms of pure research, I like the idea of using Wikipedia but I disagree with the idea of ONLY using Wikipedia. This type of information gathering should be conducted by finding many different forms of research posted and reviewed by others. (M. Alloway)

//A big downfall to using a Wiki for an assignment just happened to me. I posted (or at least I thought I posted) last night and I don't see it anywhere today. I should have copied and saved it in a word document, but I didn't so I will try to remember what I said. (lesson learned) I have a different perspective than S. Daniels about current events. (not that mine is right, but just a different way of looking at it) I like using Wikipedia for current events or pop culture information for 2 reasons. First of all, if it is really popular there can be a lot of people reading and editing the content which could help the source be updated and scrutinized. Second, if it is popular, it is easy to verify or confirm by checking other sources to see if the information is true. On the contrary, personally I would try to stay away from topics that are not known by many people. For example, if I wanted to learn about a specific scientific entity that has little research and few people that specialize in that area, I don't think Wikipedia would be a good source. It would be difficult to verify if the information was correct and so few people might read the topic that it won't get edited and scrutinized as frequently. (Patti N)//

I think Wikipedia is a fine place to find quick nuggets of information. But like already stated, it shouldn’t be the only source for information. Even though it’s one of the largest reference websites, it’s a collaborate effort by many people as opposed to specific experts. To me personally it’s off-putting to know that it’s written largely by anonymous contributors. Something about that doesn’t seem on the up and up. Not sure if anonymity is a regular practice when contributing to reference or other sites but, after reading that about Wikipedia, it just confirmed to me that it shouldn’t be trusted 100%. If a person needs a quick understanding of something or quick definition, I think a look up in Wikipedia would probably be a safe bet. However, if a user needs more than this, I don’t think Wikipedia is the correct source to refer to.

One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is that any subject matter can be introduced and explored. There is not one central viewpoint that is the drive behind each article. Censorship of subject matter is unlikely. Collaboration and correction is encouraged and expected. A strong bias or slant in a subject matter is very likely to be brought into question and examined. The vast uniqueness among contributers encourages the exploration of a variety of topics from a variety of vantage points. (K. McDonald)

I use Wikipedia as my first source for information concerning my own personal questions about daily things to scientific principles and have even donated $10 to them. When the internet protested SOPA and major sites went black, I was at a loss. While I personally have never thought I was reading incorrect or biased information, I have read news stories of staffers changing a politician’s wikipage to something a more vague or just untrue. I like the Utopian five pillars of Wikipedia which seem to still be standing. Everyone who reads Wikipedia should be aware of the possible inaccuracies but I feel they represent a small, small percentage of all entries. I also read that contributions to Wikipedia are slowing down because it already hold most of our world’s knowledge. (A. Krejci)

When I am trying to look up a fact for general knowledge purposes, I do like Wikipedia. It’s like the Amazon.com of information. There seems to be an article about almost any topic you would want to know about. There have only been a couple of times when I have looked up something on Wikipedia and not found an article. Several times I have heard the statistic that its accuracy is comparable to other encyclopedias. I tend not to use Wikipedia as a primary resource though when doing research.

Strengths: Wikipedia can be more current, especially about current events, than an encyclopedia because it is constantly being updated. Wikipedia’s breadth of subject matter is also a strength. Errors are reduced due to the shear number of contributors who check and recheck facts.

Weaknesses: Articles can be in the midst of being revised or even have been vandalized due to the openness of the Wiki format. Contributors may get away with not following protocol when adding content or may add content without citations. (MJ Callahan)