Wikipedia: Can you trust the info?
One of my ‘Tech Talk’ radio show listeners wrote in to ask me: “Can you trust the information you read on Wikipedia? My son wants to use the website as a source for a summer school report.”
The short answer? No.
Will he probably use Wikipedia throughout his academic life? Most certainly.
Wikipedia is like the Coles/Cliffs Notes of the 21st century — but with questionable accuracy at times.
Why do I say this? A “wiki,” such as the popular Wikipedia.org encyclopedia, is a website that allows anyone to create or edit content. Consider it a communal work-in-progress project that blurs the lines between surfer and publisher. As such, many teachers and professors won’t allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source for essays, book reports or other assignments. Despite that, many students frequent the site for quick, easy-to-read explanations on a wide range of subjects.
Educators often want students to research subjects written by professionals in that particular field, as opposed to online “armchair” experts, if you will. But with so many millions of Wikipedia.org visitors, many of whom make slight alterations and tweaks on entries, it could be argued the information is whittled down to the “truth” over time.
Plus, credible Wikipedia entries link to a myriad of bibliographical sources, often outlined in the Notes section at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, Wikipedia offers the following caveat: “This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.”
If students are going to use Wikipedia for a school paper, consider it only a starting point and be sure to cross-reference the information with other credible sources or encyclopedias. And always be sure your child credits all sources at the end of the paper.
Oh, and Sync readers might recall I’ve had a personal run-in with Wikipedia myself as someone (jokingly?) wrote “Marc Saltzman is one of the few openly gay technology columnists in mainstream media.” I read that to my wife. LOL.
Sync readers, be honest — how often do use Wikipedia and use them as “fact” for school or work?
Filed Under: Computing > For Women > Mobile Apps > Mobility > Portable Devices > Software > Tech Trends > Wireless
Tags: community, dictionary, encyclopedia, essay, fact, internet, online, report, school, trust, web, wiki, wikipedia
In researching anything, I use it as one of many sources, not THE DEFINITIVE source.
(Report comment)
I usually start with Wikipedia and then go forward from there by checking some of the citations.
“Regular” encyclopedia such as the Britannia also contain errors and are by their very printed nature, frequently out-of-date.
Someone should do a study comparing randomly selected Wikipedia articles and Britannica (or other reputable source) against the best published materials in the relevant fields, preferably by experts in each of the fields, scoring the wiki artcle and the Britannica article and later performing a t-test to make a definitive evaluations of Wikipedia’s accuracy.
(Report comment)
Becca, such a study was conducted. The Nature news team concocted a test of Wikipedia vs. Britannica, except that they more favorably selected articles that they knew Britannica had updated in their annuals, but fed the judges the “old” Britannica content. Result? Wikipedia still turned out 34% less accurate than Britannica.
Also, the University of Minnesota conducted a study of error rates on Wikipedia (what they called “damaged views”), and they found that over time, Wikipedia’s chance of showing the reader a mistake is increasing on an exponential curve.
I happened to chair a study of how Wikipedia treats the 100 articles about the United States senators. The articles were deliberately malformed about 6.8% of the time, and the average error took 24 hours to fix.
All of this has been documented. Then the media suppresses the results, because “people seem to love Wikipedia, so why spoil their fun?”
(Report comment)
Never!
(Report comment)
Wikipedia is a place to start, but certainly not where I would choose to do the majority of any research– at least, not any reputable research. I check and double check any of the things I may read on wiki if I’m conducting research. Someone once hacked the Canada site and gave me a good laugh, but when my students actually copied, pasted and plagiarized the wiki with the false information, it was a bit less funny… It’s a good little resource, but part of the research process is checking up on your facts.
(Report comment)
It seems that the main gripe of educators is students copying Wikipedia verbatim, whether the content is correct or incorrect. The solution is to fail any student who copies verbatim from any source, be it Wikipedia or Britannica.
The root of the problem seems to be that students are requested to write essays on topics that they could not care less about, but that handing mediocre work is not really punished. In an economic sense, they have every incentive to copy.
@AJ: Probably your students did not even read what they had copied.
(Report comment)
As a Wikipedia editor, I’ve learned over time that you can’t trust anything you read on the website at face value. If it sounds really odd, it’s worth it to leaf through the article history to figure out if it’s vandalism or not. There are a lot of ins and outs that – really – only Wikipedia editors know about.
As a result, I cannot stress enough the importance of checking sources listed at the bottom of an article. It takes a few minutes, and almost every statement in a good article can be backed up by a reliable source.
Wikipedia even states that the website is not to be used as a primary source; rather, as a tertiary source, a collection of information referenced to professional publications.
As others have stated, the real problem comes from students (and professionals sometimes) copying information from Wikipedia verbatim, and getting in trouble for either plagiarism or false information.
In my history of vandal-fighting, I have discovered that – although many vandals can post very plausible-sounding information, making it necessary to check stuff – there really aren’t that many vandals compared to the users making positive edits. It’s essentially a case of laissez faire – certainly use Wikipedia, but double-check the important stuff.
(Report comment)
I guess it depends on what you are researching:
I often need to recall a summary of an old movie or a book, or some basic background stuff on a historical character or event.
Now I am 54, and I have a good bit of experience and education. I am also not using the Wiki in a school thesis situation.
I find Wiki quite good for the use to which I put it. It, like Snopes, Jeeves, Answers.com, reference.com, etc. has a purpose, and if rightly used, can be quite convenient.
If I read a book 20 years ago, and need to recall the gist of it, Wiki is often good. I simply have to be aware to watch out for bias in the writer(s) of the article, and so on. Using Wiki for R&D-ing somebody currently alive and famous (or infamous, like “That Great Saltzman Guy”!), is probably not the best idea. Looking to Wiki for a quick Synopsis on “The Old Man and The Sea” is ok. But I would not use Wiki as my sole source, for say, a book report. (Although I have not written one of those in years!)
One problem with Wiki, is that there are often “Gaps”, I Google for some info, and see no Wiki entry, but Googling usually gives me another lead, so, often I can solve my need for quick, basic facts that way.
Sadly, “conventional” resources like Britannica, or Encarta, etc, rarely show up in my Google Results listing… Unless they are “several pages in”, where I rarely venture to such depth. I have no idea why. I guess theri stuff is not properly Web Indexed, or whatever.
Sorry somebody gave you a Wiki Flame, Marc. One hopes you and your wife had an “enjoyable chance to prove them wrong” on that issue! [Yes, I am an incurable romantic.] There are errors and bad guys everywhere. We just have to step around them.
Keep your chin up, Marc.
Regards, Pierre.
(Report comment)
When one cedes authority over what is true and what is not true to whoever happens to have the loudest voice one is soon reminded that, just like high school, that voice invariably comes from the back of the classroom. For this reason, WikiP will remain a pop culture punchline. For fun, check the edit history on, say, the Geroge Bush doctrine to see what I mean.
(Report comment)
[...] Wikipedia: Can you trust the info? | Sync Blog [...]
(Report comment)
While going to university every class I had completely disallowed the use of the site. Anyone…ANYONE…can change it at a moment’s time. Honestly I agree with them, find some legimate sources. Anything on there is not necessarily factual and you have no guarantee that the person that updated it is an expert in the field. Many articles, as mentioned above, are incredibly biased as well making it a horrible place to go for information for any form of research.
(Report comment)