Check your source: How reliable is Wikipedia?
by Rebecca Seidel | THE CLASSIC | Townsend Harris High School

“Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

The greeting words on Wikipedia’s homepage (wikipedia.org) speak the truth. “Anyone” means anyone: a credited expert, an unqualified stranger, or someone who is just really bored. It can even be you.

“Once I added ‘I love rubber duckies’ [to a Wikipedia article],” said senior Lydia Nitchman. Sophomore Lory Martinez has also “edited” Wikipedia for fun: she once added her own words to an entry about the color blue. “They left it for two weeks before changing it,” she recalled.

This poses a question: if anyone can edit Wikipedia, then when it comes to research, how much can one trust the site?

Wikipedia administrators do designate people to manage the entries, to make sure any added information is relevant and accurate. Articles undergo frequent maintenance, and misinformation is usually removed quickly. Lydia’s “rubber ducky” addition, for example, was removed within days. “I guess whoever regulates the site caught my faulty editing,” she observed.

However, the basic premise of Wikipedia is that everyone has the initial power to edit articles, regardless of their level of expertise. According to Wikipedia’s “About” page, having diverse contributors “provides the access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented.” Also, having many editors makes articles more timely and open to correction.

Wikipedia is powered by software called “wiki,” the Hawaiian word for “quick.” This software grants editing access to multiple users, rather than just one (Tapscott 71). People often use wikis to run collaborative web projects to which different people contribute. “The term ‘wiki’ is all over the place,” remarked Susan Getting, Assistant Principal of Humanities, who has seen it used in numerous web pages.

After being introduced to wiki technology, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger founded Wikipedia (a combination of “wiki” and “encyclopedia”) in 2001. The site, run almost exclusively by volunteers, gathered a total of 18,000 entries in its first year. Today, the online encyclopedia has over two million articles. “‘Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge,’” said Mr. Wales, as quoted in the book Wikinomics. “‘That’s what we’re doing’” (71).

Because it is not limited to paper like a regular encyclopedia, Wikipedia continues to grow, with articles encompassing everything from ancient history to modern culture.

However, due to the constant addition of new information, as well as the stream of public editing, not everything is always correct. In spite of the site’s routine maintenance, inaccuracies have remained unchecked.

“It doesn’t guarantee reliability,” said Ms. Getting. “You have to take it with a grain of salt, because it’s not always the most accurate.”

Wikipedia’s lack of consistency is problematic to both student researchers and their teachers. In 2007, inconsistencies led the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont to ban Wikipedia citations. Concern about the online encyclopedia had risen after numerous students included identical inaccuracies about Japanese history on their exams. The professor traced the inaccuracy to its source: Wikipedia. According to The New York Times, this incident led to the college’s new restriction.

Unlike Middlebury College, Townsend Harris does not have an official Wikipedia research policy. However, many teachers warn their students against using it as a source. Out of 188 students of all grades surveyed in classrooms this month, 174 claimed that teachers have restricted them from research on the site.

“It’s not a terrible source, but I don’t think it’s a creditable one, either. I have seen misinformation disseminated,” said Humanities teacher Georgette Wallace.

AP World History teacher Aliza Sherman has a similar attitude toward the site. “I don’t like them [my students] to use it,” she stated, adding that “some of the stories are completely fictitious.”

This was indeed the case in a well-publicized scandal back in November 2005. A vandal edited a Wikipedia entry about journalist John Seigenthaler, Sr., writing that he was “thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby” (qtd. in Read). This false claim went undetected by site administrators for over four months.

Since then, Wikipedia’s executives have set new restrictions, hoping to boost accuracy and prevent vandalism. At one time, creators of articles could be anonymous. Now, users have to register under a name before creating new articles. Also, entries on heavily disputed topics or people (e.g. George W. Bush) are locked from public editing (Tapscott 74). In these cases, personal opinions don’t ever reach the text.

Wikipedia articles also contain citations in the form of links, so readers may trace information back to original sources. In the article “In Defense of Wikipedia,” Diane Murley observes that this makes the online encyclopedia a valuable reference tool, especially when beginning a project.

To further bolster dependability, when there aren’t enough citations within an entry, or if an entry appears biased, Wikipedia administrators place a note of warning at the top of the page. Freshman Tymoteusz Trzaskalski noted, “If someone posts false information, it’s usually poorly done and easily spotted.”

These cautionary measures have increased confidence in Wikipedia’s reliability. “I used to be more skeptical of it than I am now,” Ms. Getting remarked. “At least it identifies what’s put online responsibly, and what isn’t.” However, she continued, “I wouldn’t suggest or recommend using it for a research paper or something of a scholarly nature.”

While some students disagree with teachers’ imposing limitations on Wikipedia, many others think the restrictions are justified. “Not all the information is accurate,” said sophomore J.P. Amato, adding that “one false fact can have serious consequences.”

A junior disagreed. “Students should be allowed to use the source, but at their own risk,” she said. “They should double-check the legitimacy of the information.”

Students have made a clear distinction between using Wikipedia for preliminary research and citing it in a bibliography. While 92% of those surveyed said they have sought information on the site, only 20% have actually used and cited it in a research project. Out of that number, only a few faced repercussions such as deduction of points.

“There’s no reason to lose points on such a thing,” said sophomore Marissa Shieh, who agrees with teachers’ restrictions on Wikipedia research. “I use it for general information only.”

English teacher Rafal Olechowski said, “It’s an okay first-look, go-to place, but not a last place to look. When you’re doing a research project, it shouldn’t be your only source.”

Wikipedia’s administrators give the same advice. The database contains a page that assists researchers in citing Wikipedia articles, but it comes with a warning: “Citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.”

The statement continues: “As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia’s content — please check your facts against multiple sources.”

This is precisely what sophomore Abigail Koffler does during her research. “I use it [Wikipedia],” she said, “but I check it with another site, something ending in ‘.edu.’” According to www.educause.edu, the domain source for these websites, web addresses with the “.edu” extension come from recognized educational institutions. However, scholars aren’t the only ones who post information on these websites. Students from these schools also use the “.edu” extension, so not all material is of scholar-level quality.

While some students use Wikipedia in conjunction with other websites, about 11% of those polled shun Wikipedia altogether during research. “I do not use it at all,” stated Dimitri Otero, freshman, explaining that “people can put false information there.”

Sophomore Freddy Millán, Jr., has a different outlook. “Everyone thinks it’s a bad resource because people can add whatever they want to the articles, but it’s not like that,” he said, adding that there are people who check the site regularly for inaccuracies. “Wikipedia is a much better source than people are led to believe. I love it,” he declared.

Either way, Wikipedia has become a modern cultural phenomenon. All students surveyed said they were familiar with the website. As of January 19, Alexa.com, which ranks websites by traffic, places Wikipedia as the eighth most visited site by Internet users globally. The seven above it are all industry giants: Yahoo, Google, YouTube, Windows Live, Facebook, MSN, and MySpace.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s place as a research tool is still evolving. It is up to the user to determine if, when, and how to use it.