Wiki Wrong?
“No Google! No Wikipedia! Use OPAC!” This command, a favorite phrase of
name omitted, Media Specialist at Liberty High School, has become legend among students. Teachers reinforce these guidelines, forbidding the use of Wikipedia, Google, or other search engines as research sites, limiting students only to the school’s cataloging systems (such as OPAC) or internet research databases paid for by the school. Stating that sites such as Wikipedia are “unreliable,” “prone to vandalism,” and not “a valid source of information” (Ronin) teachers across the nation impose similar restrictions. But students and some teachers regard Wikipedia and other similar sites as useful sources of information. “I’ll use Wikipedia,” says
name omitted, “it’s a good secondary [research] source.” So why is it so hated when used in an academic setting? Considering this disapproval, why is it then the fastest growing and most popular research site on the internet, with “more than 3m articles” in “200-odd languages” with “more ‘visitors’ than the online New York Times, CNN and other mainstream sites” (The wiki principle)? There must be something in the ability to edit information at will that attracts people – a feeling of power, control over the supposed truth; a moral obligation to make sure the information is correct; the freedom to do as you wish; the chance to have your name associated with great academic minds… it could be any of these, or none at all. Perhaps the only way to tell is to ask Wikipedia itself, and give Wiki a chance. (I would, except that I’m forbidden to cite Wikipedia as a source. Wonderfully ironic.)
Wikipedia, and wiki sites in general, allow users to collectively add and edit content (Kaplan). This has been a hot debate point about the usefulness of wikis, but is most probably the main attracting feature of the wiki site. Anybody, from a multi-PhD professor at an ivy-league university to a five-year old kid with a keyboard, can log in and edit the information on the site, or start a new article of their own. On the positive side, this provides a wide range of views on any one subject, and allows new information to be added almost immediately. Wikipedia provides an “In the News” section on its main page, documenting current events from around the world, reported only minutes after the official releases come from sites such as CNN and BBC. These news reports link to other Wikipedia pages to provide necessary background information about the event. Unfortunately, this openness to editing also gives way to vandalism. Generally such vandalism is obvious – “The profanity is a dead give away” (Darkesia) – and is fixed rapidly, but some is invariably missed and remains on the site for some time. One well-documented case of Wikipedia vandalism was left untouched for 132 days, implying that John Seigenthaler, journalist and former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was a Soviet national involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy (The wiki principle). Fortunately, these are rare occurrences. One person attempted to test the group of dedicated wiki editors with a small amount of vandalism of his own: “It [the article] had the false information up for about 5 minutes before it got changed back by a wiki editor” (dont pick it up). Articles commonly abused are often protected against vandalism by locking out edit powers to unregistered members – for example, the biography of President George W. Bush recently displayed the golden lock icon denoting its “semi-protected” status before such public notices were removed by the Wikimedia Foundation (eWeek). Unprotected articles are frequently patrolled by dedicated volunteers and administrators, to ensure that their information is kept accurate. In the event something does get abused, the Wiki software provides a history of all previous versions of the page, so as to easily identify what changes were made where and by whom. Repeated vandals get banned from the site to prevent future abuses, for the protection of those who edit pages for their improvement rather than their destruction. This freedom is by far one of the most attractive features of the site.
But what if something isn’t caught? A piece of false information that sounds credible and might even be backed up by other information could be allowed to remain in an article for months, unnoticed by the general user and the Wikimedia staff. How is it certain that the pages are actually correct? Nature Magazine asked that very question, and compared a random selection of pages from Wikipedia to a selection of articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica, the historical standard for all academic knowledge. With the final score standing at 162 errors in Wikipedia and 123 errors in the sainted Encyclopedia, the editors of the massive print volume claimed victory (The wiki principle). But can they? The Encyclopedia’s main selling point is that it is supposedly the most accurate repository of information available (since the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy hasn’t been written yet, on Earth, at least). Yet apparently, it’s only a third better than an internet site that contains information entered by a wide conglomeration of people. And Wikipedia provides far more information than the Encyclopedia does - the aforementioned news pages, biographies of famous people, various places not well-known enough to be found in a volume of the Encyclopedia’s renown. None of these exist in the gigantic series, but they can all be found in Wikipedia. Better yet, Wikipedia doesn’t weigh 50 pounds, cost an arm and a leg, or become obsolete in five years. It’s a readily available internet site, free to anyone, and constantly being updated. And according to Nature’s study, almost as accurate. I don’t know about you, but I find it far easier to look something up on a computer than I do searching the hard way in a massive book. A few keystrokes and you’ve found what you’re looking for, while the old scholar still has his nose shoved deep in the spine of the Encyclopedia.
The main redeeming trait for those who hold a level of disdain for the online encyclopedia is the wide range of citations it offers. Pages on Wikipedia can generally be placed into one of two categories: pages with no citation, and pages with plenty. Those in the former group are clearly labeled as such – an administrator, upon finding such a page, will place it in a category titled simply “Articles needing Citation.” They display a small box at the top of the article indicating this; where one such unsourced statement is made, it will be marked like so: [citation needed]. This mark links to one of Wikipedia’s several policy pages, a guideline for citing information within Wikipedia articles, worked out amongst many frequent users and administrators of the site. For the pages that do have citation, they generally tend to have a wide range of sources to back up whatever information is included. Key terms within the article itself often link to other Wikipedia pages to provide further information. This wide range of sources is admitted by those not fond of the information found on Wikipedia: “I use wiki as a place to start but, I think it is a way better idea to use the sources of the Wikipedia articles,” says one such person (dont pick it up). Wikipedia offers plenty of information for everyone; even for those who don’t trust the information on the site, it acts as an excellent starting point to find more “reliable” facts.
The free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s description is an apt phrase indeed. If it doesn’t serve as an encyclopedia of information, it can easily serve as an encyclopedia of sources for that information. It does not hold the respect it deserves amongst the educational community. Teachers stand almost afraid of the chance that a given article could have been vandalized moments before a student accesses it. “It’s correct 99% of the time,” says
name omitted, “but there’s that 1%.” That 1% - one chance out of a hundred, more probably even less, that a given article could be false. Yet the Encyclopedia Britannica, previously honored as holding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, hasn’t proven to be completely accurate itself – in fact, almost as “inaccurate” as Wikipedia. So why isn’t it accepted by everyone? They may give reasons of their own, but I think it’s because they simply haven’t given Wikipedia a chance.
