Thursday, March 27, 2008

Give Wikipedia a Break

I often think Wikipedia gets a bad rap. I heard this once again when my students received library instruction--that Wikipedia is bad because anyone can change it; since anyone can change (expert or not) it is not reliable.

This flies in the face of studies done about Wikipedia that show in fact that it is at least as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is (presumably) written by experts.

What this negative attitude toward Wikipedia fails to recognize is Wikipedia's special power toward accuracy. That revision--additions, deletions, rephrasings, citations, etc.--by a plethora of users in aggregate causes a vast majority of the content to be accurate, or at least as accurate as any writing is. Anyone can input inaccurate information, sure, but anyone can also correct that inaccurate information. This has the effecting of levelling the inclines, plucking out the wild hairs, battling out the facts from the fiction democratically. The process causes imperfections in some entries (particularly very timely and controversial information, like negative information about politicians currently running for office) but also provides astounding accuracies that heirarchical references fail to achieve.

Now I'm not suggesting we allow students to use wikipedia as a secondary source in their writing (just as we don't allow them to use encyclopedia), but I think Wikipedia bears reconsideration as a valuable reference source.

No comments: