By: Kaelin Jumaa
Whether you are writing an academic essay, paragraph or article, every class upholds the same strict set of rules for your work. The first rule is to always use Times New Roman font in size 12. The second is to indent your paragraphs and present your writing double-spaced. The third and final rule is to never use Wikipedia as a reliable source for your project. Despite the fact that crediting Wikipedia as a reliable source is the English teacher’s equivalent of sacrilege- just as French teachers faint whenever a student utters the words “Google Translate”- I have taken it upon myself to investigate this issue further. Because Wikipedia is believed to have numerous editors scouring the site for errors, I thought that the site would make for a decent source for my school papers. However, upon further research, I have found that the truth can be much more complicated than that.
Many students can agree that Wikipedia would make English class easier due to its vast knowledge on every topic and seemingly reliable information. Ironically, many Wiki users beg to differ:
After conducting a thorough investigation into the matter, I have found that Wikipedia does not collect its own information, but merely collects pre-written-and-recorded data from other sources and summarizes the given information. So, could Wikipedia be used as a reliable source if the collected data was credited from other reliable sources? Well, once again, it is not as simple as that.
But what qualifies as a reliable source for school projects?, you may be asking. Reliable sources generally credit all of their research thoroughly, while stating all the contributors, dates, and any other relative information that can be used to verify the creator’s work. Reliable sources convey strong messages using sturdy facts and evidence as reasoning. Many reliable sources can be certified by the organizations which they were published under, or may provide its own information on details of the research that the creators themselves have conducted. Other sources may even go to the lengths of interviewing a professional on the article’s topic, denoting the writer(s) as legitimate researchers and allowing their article to be deemed as a reliable source.
Wikipedia also has an infamous reputation for providing users with free rein across all of its pages. Even Wiki’s editors, dubbed “Wikipedians”, must not be qualified writers, but can be any regular Wikipedia user who chooses to edit any of the site’s articles. As quoted from Wiki’s page about its very own Wikipedians (titled “Wikipedia:Wikipedians”), “Wikipedians are volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia by editing its pages, unlike readers who simply read the articles. Anyone—including you—can become a Wikipedian by boldly making changes when they find something that can be added or improved.” Summarized, this proves that Wiki’s editors are not hired by the website, but can be any regular user who contributes to the website.
Although, one could argue that Wikipedia does offer featured articles that have been revised by Wikipedia's own editors who could, in fact, have an extensive knowledge on the subject. To prove this, an older study has found Wikipedia to have an accuracy rate of 80%, while other sources had an average rate of 95%, making for a decent comparison for the notoriously inaccurate website. Also, the aforementioned proper definition of a reliable source (quoted directly from the “UGA Libraries” website) is this: “a reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence.” With what I remember from my countless assignments, Wikipedia often credits other sources through links for readers to analyze themselves. The website's users often credit the papers with references and links to external resources, making for legitimate articles. But again, the website usually credits and links other Wikipedia pages, which in turn credits more Wikipedia pages. If one of Wiki’s pages does include external links other than Wikipedia pages, then the page might qualify for a credible source if one can prove that the Wikipedia page is consistent with the external link’s information. At that point, you would have already read the credible external source and could just use its information for your work instead!
Taken together, it is safe to say that Wikipedia could be used to verify previously-written information from other sources, or may be used to find more credible resources on a given topic using the page’s citations list. However, under NO circumstances should it be used as your main source for an academic paper. This is because many errors may be left unchecked for a prolonged period of time by its “editors”, or that the website’s work could be incorrect and, truthfully, completely fictional altogether without rigorous testing. So, unlike many other websites who recommend that it be your choice to credit Wikipedia, I believe that the website could be used to double-check data and find more reliable sources linked within Wikipedia’s articles.
Comments