While being virtually one of the largest and most vast databases of information, it has been debated on how reliable Wikipedia actually is. Since it is an interactive encyclopaedia, meaning people can contribute to it, calls into question how valid the information is. Many case studies have been made which point out errors in the validity of information posted on Wikipedia, yet in some ways these studies make note that perhaps Wikipedia isn’t as unreliable as some people claim it to be. In which ways are Wikipedia legitimate and how can one use it properly?
Wikipedia is a great tool because its information is so vast. One can research just about anything whether it be topics in pop culture, science, history, etc. To date there are close to 4 million entries. 3.7 million articles have been added since Wikipedia’s creation in 2001 with 200 available languages to read from. It consists of 45,000 registered users, not including people who simply visit the site but are not registered. On average there are 1,500 articles added daily and it is the 37th most visited website in the world. Knowing the extent of information that Wikipedia holds it is hard to avoid it when beginning research on a topic seeing as just about everything is available.
It is because Wikipedia is interactive that its validity is called into question. When anyone-meaning people who are not qualified professionals in a certain field of research-is able to contribute to the content of an encyclopaedia, there are limited restrictions on what information can be posted whether valid or non-valid. In December of 2005, the magazine Nature conducted a study comparing Wikipedia to the well known and very reputable Encyclopaedia Britannica. Surprisingly when comparing errors the results were very close, Wikipedia being only slightly less accurate than Britannica. Nature states that in one certain case; “Reviewers found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica respectively.”
There are certain instances of very controversial edits being made to Wikipedia articles. One includes an edit by a random registered user who claimed that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy was involved in his assassination. Another involved podcasting engineer Adam Curry editing information on the topic of podcasting, erasing references to his competitor’s work. Although controversial, on topics as wide spread as these it is only a short amount of time until attention is called to it and the proper adjustments are made. The user who claimed unverified information about Senator Kennedy was revealed through an IP search, and the references to the podcasters were re-added, although Mr. Curry claimed in his defence that he was merely making the article more accurate, not attempting to benefit himself.
Wikipedia claims that they have increased security measures to help restrict the amount of invalid information that is added to the site by making the only qualified writers and editors registered users. However, this does not mean much as all it requires to become a registered user is a username and password. No email address or personal information is required, so basically anyone can become an editor and still have their identity guarded. There have been some cases of US Congress members joining Wikipedia to edit information on articles about themselves. This was also discovered through IP tracking, and although it was decided that all the information added was relevant, it still calls into question the ethical nature of the ability to do this.
It is because there is such a vast amount of information on Wikipedia that it is hard to take a solid stand point on it. Many widely researched topics have been finely combed and thus declared very accurate, whereas others can be seen as shockingly inaccurate. Robert McHenry, a former editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, stated on an article about Alexander Hamilton that its quality was “what might be expected of a high school student.” The beauty of Wikipedia is that is so fast growing, basically the moment news is created it can be learned about and expanded upon through Wikipedia. Before the 21st century there was no database that could educate people on the vast amount of information that existed, but through the use of an interactive encyclopaedia this became possible. However the problems remain. Better and more efficient editors are needed to constantly keep in check the quality and accuracy of information that is being produced, so that users can have both vast and accurate information.
When using Wikipedia to research one must be very careful. Since Wikipedia does to some extent comb the information that is posted, information on very reputable and popular topics are normally accurate for the most part. However as previously mentioned this may not always be the case, and it is always a good idea to double check information from Wikipedia with that of a scholarly article or published work. Additionally, with topics that are very unpopular to the public or less known, there is a great chance that the information is flawed because such a small percentage of the population is editing it or even reading it. Examples of this may be underground local bands or extremely unpopular movies. Seeing as one might not typically being doing a research project on a topic like this, however, it is not risky in terms of citing information incorrectly. You may simply be given the wrong impression on a topic that is not well known.
Overall if one chooses to use Wikipedia it should be done very carefully. Generally it should serve not much more than a starting point in a research project if one can safely assume the information is valid. It is possible that well into the future professional teams can help to make the validity of Wikipedia much greater, making it both a speedy and accurate database. However as of the present moment, it should be used with extreme caution if one chooses to use it at all.
Works Cited
Scholarly Journals:
Black, Erik W. "Wikipedia and Academic Peer Review: Wikipedia as a Recognised Medium for Scholarly Publication?" Online Information Review (2008). 30 May 2008
Domingus, Marlon. "OAI, Google Scholar and Wikipedia are the Answers, But What is the Question?" E-Lis (2005). 30 May 2008
Halavais, Alexander, and Derek Lackaff. "An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia." The Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (2008). 30 May 2008
Rosenzweig, Roy. "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past." The Journal of American History (2006). 30 May 2008
Websites
Giles, Jim. "Special Report Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head." Nature. 2007. 30 May 2008
Goodin, Dan. "'Natures': Wikipedia is Accurate." USA Today. 14 Dec. 2005. 30 May 2008
Hoo, Vanessa. "How Accurate is Wikipedia?" Versus Online. 2 Jan. 2006. 30 May 2008
Sack, Brian. "More Accurate Wikipedia Warnings." Cracked.Com. 2007. 30 May 2008
Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica." CNET News. 30 May 2008
"Wikipedia-How Accurate is the Online Encyclopedia?" Mail Online. 10 Mar. 2007. 30 May 2008
