Wikipedia nifty but unreliable
February 20, 2007 by The Red and Black Archives
Filed under Opinions
While working on a group project last semester, I noticed that a section of background information sent in had a number of words glowing blue. Upon further examination, I realized these unusual auras were actually a series of hyperlinks that all pointed back to a single Web site – Wikipedia.
This incident underscores the increasing influence of Wikipedia on academia and its rise as a source for academic work.
At the university in Dubai where I am studying abroad this semester, even professors regard Wikipedia as authoritative and use information copied straight from the Web site in class.
Regardless of its convenience, Wikipedia lacks consistent accuracy and should not be used as an academic reference under any circumstances.
Wikipedia has become a pervasive presence in the lives of almost any internet user, and for good reason.
Compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia covers a much more diverse array of topics on its 1,632,000+ pages, and its system of links can lead to plenty of new information.
Personally, I like to use Wikipedia to pick out music I might not have heard before, or to quickly find information on events too recent to be written in books.
The very convenience of accessing Wikipedia is belied by the fact that there are thousands of users from around the world who have different agendas, different levels of knowledge and yet the same access to edit these articles.
For wiki-supporters, their trump card has always been a highly publicized study by the scientific journal “Nature” that allegedly found Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The study actually found, using a small selection of science articles, that Wikipedia had about 4 errors for every 3 by Britanica. Challenging the report, Britannica also pointed out that most of its so-called “errors” were actually omissions of extraneous information – that the study used only portions of Britannica articles, and that Wikipedia had many more factual errors.
The media declined to cover the other side of the debate, letting Wikipedia’s perceived accuracy stand.
Wikipedia can easily be misused for any number of reasons as fake news pundit Stephen Colbert famously proved. Colbert ordered his viewers to “save” the endangered African Elephant – by editing its population numbers on Wikipedia, underscoring the vulnerability of the Wikipedia system to vandalism.
While the site is usually self-policing, its sheer size prevents its honest users from quickly rectifying all mistakes and flagging every controversial statement.
Students and professors alike should recognize that Wikipedia is only a recreational tool, not a trustworthy academic journal.
Besides, University resources such as GALILEO offer plenty of reputable databases, including the Encyclopedia Britannica online. Taking a courageous stand against misinformation, Middlebury College’s history department recently banned using Wikipedia as a source in any academic work, and our University would do well to follow suit.
Though easy to access and sometimes accurate, Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source.
Use it for fun. Use it for clarification. Use it for anything other than a citation.
- Chris Chiego is a sophomore from Memphis, Tenn. majoring in history and international affairs
