wikipedia

Okay, so I've about had it with listening to people rant and rave about Wikipedia. Sure, it's got its problems, but I think we need to take a close look at what people think those are versus what they actually are. Also, I'm giving a short presentation on this tomorrow (albeit more as a potential research question than as a rant), so I'm going to selfishly use this post to organize my thoughts.

When I first started my undergraduate degree, they herded one of my classes into a room at the library where one of the librarians gave us a lovely presentation. What I remember from this is as follows: "Do you know what a 'yahoo' is? A 'yahoo' is someone who's not very smart. So why would you trust what a 'yahoo' told you?"

In other words, "don't use search engines, because you're too much of a moron to evaluate information." Now, I don't know whether, like most librarians, this guy thought that by putting the fear of God into students, he'd ensure his job security for years to come, or what. But it's because of this bullplop that I have to listen to people telling me over and over again that Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything, that anyone can change it willy-nilly, and that I can't trust a thing I get from it.

People, this is plain stupidity, and I'm sick of hearing it. I suppose I don't blame you; I'm much more inclined to blame the all-or-nothing approach that both librarians and educators are wont to take when teaching (or failing to teach) students to evaluate information. But before we discuss this extremely poor approach, I'd like to do my best to debunk two of the common arguments against Wikipedia. I'm also going to argue that it should not be used as a source in academic papers, and I'll talk a little bit about why that is, as well.


The first major argument against Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Democracy at its worst, right? Well, no. Not really. For one thing, people seem to forget that Wikipedia is moderated. Entries will sometimes be locked to editing if they've been vandalized, or even if there's a risk of vandalism. Wikipedia itself happily acknowledges that older entries tend to be more accurate than newer ones. Talk pages are there for the reading - you can see what people said, and what justifications they gave, about virtually everything that's included in an article. And most importantly, good articles are sourced. If it's not sourced, don't trust it - it's as simple as that.

And then there's the Britannica flap that's just been everywhere (unfortunately the original Nature article is now paid subscription only; see if your library has one). The truth is, Britannica is an authoritative source, and Wikipedia is not. Britannica is written by and sourced from credentialed professionals (well, unless they're faking it,) and Wikipedia is only sometimes written by and sourced from credentialed professionals. And most importantly, IT'S EASY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. Wikipedia does not purport to be produced by a well-known company in reference or written by top experts in the field. You can also tell when articles are done well and when they're not. Is the article sourced? Why not go look at the sources? Are there journal articles cited? Your local or college library probably has a subscription to most major journals, abstracting services and aggregators. I know for a fact that Boston, Brookline, and the Minuteman Network libraries all have subscriptions to at least a few major databases, and all the major academic libraries in the area have even more, many of which can be used from home with your library barcode. Check what Wikipedia says, and if the article isn't sourced, go somewhere else. It's as simple as that. I'm sick of people insisting that everything that comes from Wikipedia is by necessity invalid. Do you have even a tiny shred of discretion? Do you have at least half a brain? Well, learn to use it; I promise it'll feel better to do that than it will to repeatedly insist to me that you're not going to listen to anything I have to say because I looked at Wikipedia.

Which brings me to my next point: citations in academic papers. People confuse, "Don't cite this in an academic paper," with "Don't ever trust anything this says." This is also idiotic. There are lots of things you shouldn't cite in an academic paper, and in most cases, general encyclopedias are one of them. If you're writing a paper for your 300-level history class about socio-economic changes among minority groups during the Reagan administration, I guarantee that your professor is not going to be happy to see the Britannica article on Ronald Reagan in your bibliography. It's not appropriate; academic papers use peer-reviewed journal articles, detailed monographs, and primary sources, not general knowledge resources. The same is true for psychology, for medicine, for pretty much anything you can think of. Can you imagine a major medical study citing the Columbia entry on hepatitis B as a source? Of course not. Does this mean that everything in Columbia is totally untrustworthy? Of course not. It just means that it's not an appropriate source for your work.

In my humble opinion, Wikipedia's great for three major things: (1) ready reference questions that can be confirmed later, (2) finding web and print sources about a topic (just as you might use Britannica as a starting point, looking at its bibliography to find in-depth sources on the subject), and (3) finding out how to look something up when I'm stuck. And yes, I seriously do think Wikipedia is great for ready reference. The accurate entries are easily verifiable (as in, "Oh, look, this date of death is sourced from the obit in the New York Times"), and the inaccurate entires are easily traced, too (as in, "Oh look, there's no source listed," "Oh look, this article on beagles is sourced from some breeder's page but not from the American Kennel Club - I'd better verify that a few more places," and "You know, I have trouble believing that Emperor Palpatine is our new Pope.")

You also have to consider what information you're looking for. Status of Tibet? You're going to have a hard time finding anything neutral in any reference source, let alone Wikipedia. Date George Washington died? What the hell reason would anyone have to lie about it? Is it sourced from anywhere at all? Then trust it. I mean, really, people, this isn't that hard. Librarians and professors love to assume that undergraduates are brainless slugs with no discretion. They treat them like children, and tell them, in essence, that they can't talk to strangers without an adult there, because they lack the discernment to tell the difference between the nice man behind the counter at the store and creepy guy staring at them from behind some bushes.

Don't be an idiot and take everything as black and white, no matter what they told you. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not usually great about crediting people with any kind of intelligence or discretion, but in this case, I really believe that it's time for academia to let it go. It's time to stop telling students that Wikipedia is, ever and always, a big no-no. Mostly because I'm sick of hearing people gasp in horror when I load the page, but also because (and I can't believe I'm saying this) I genuinely believe that if you teach people to evaluate information well, they will be able to do it, and as a general rule, I think it's far better to teach effective use than to say, "If you feel the urge to think about something, just come see me and I'll take care of it," however much you think this will help keep your job relevant (and honestly, that's what I think a lot of this is about, both from librarians and from professors). And if you know what's good for you, don't start lecturing me on how Wikipedia can't be trusted, because I'll just show you this entry and tell you to sit down and shut up while I find the answer to your question and verify it.

Because you have to remember this: technically, I'm an information expert and you're not. So fuck off.