Wikipedia_as_a_Research_Tool

Wikipedia as a Tool for Research David Powell MGT 521 April 18, 2011 Dr. Cheryl Lentz Wikipedia as a Tool for Research While Wikipedia is clearly an unreliable source of information for the purposes of academic research, the value it has as an egalitarian platform allowing open participation and collaboration is clear. This author is arguing not against the value of Wikipedia as a service to people surfing the web but against its inclusion as a valid research tool for academic writing. In this essay, the author will present an argument against the idea that Wikipedia should be allowed as a valid source for research. The issue of inconsistencies at Wikipedia where criteria for evaluating online sources is concerned will be discussed and used to bolster the author’s position. However, the general cases for and against Wikipedia will be included in a fair and balanced way with the intent to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. The Case for Wikipedia The lack of strict controls on editing and adding content keeps Wikipedia from being taken seriously as a reliable source of information. Since the site is policed and regulated by the Wikipedia community (comprised of everyone and anyone) many people believe that the content is filled with factually incorrect information.  However, according to a 2005 study done by Nature, Wikipedia contains only slightly more inaccuracies in science-related topics than does Encyclopedia Britannica” (Chandler & Gregory, 2010, pg 248, paragraph 1).  The reality is that information is fluid and can alter rapidly.  Print sources are no more valid a credible source because they quickly become outdated.  Many other electronic sources can face the same issue of fact mishap or outdate sourcing.  Wikipedia is not the only credible source online but should be viewed as a valid resource. Some opine that Wikipedia is a balanced, neutral and mostly reliable source of information, as supported by the following quote from Templeton (2011): The tug-of-war between equally entrenched and committed sides of a contentious issue gives Wikipedia a true neutrality, a true accuracy. More than some high-minded academic granting a token summary to a side he doesn’t actually support, Wikipedia is a real exchange of ideas. There’s an almost economic tidal force in its open structure, a literal market of ideas that can press the raw carbon of facts into the rough diamonds of truth. All in all, Wikipedia really ought to be the planet’s most reliable source of information. Wikipedia may have the potential to be somewhat unreliable but Wikipedia is still a credible source in as much that it is an excellent model of basics information on any rage of topics. Wikipedia presents a subject basis from a collective resource group and cites the references below the text of the article. Regardless of whether or not people see Wikipedia as a valid source of information in itself, the material listed on the site is usually an invaluable starting point for research on any topic. The Case against Wikipedia Wikipedia is not a credible or reliable source of information—certainly not for academic or other serious research purposes. A person may be able to learn some basic information about a topic or question that could be used as a starting point for further research to confirm the validity of the initial information found there. The main problem with Wikipedia is the ability of anyone, regardless of education, background, or credentials, to add to and edit content. Wikipedia (2011) plainly disclaims on its website that people of any background or standing can add content to their site on any topic. The content is not validated by scholarly review. Some of the references cited in the content turn out to be credible, but the writing on any topic seems to be inconsistent at best. According to Barnes (2005), when checking through a sample of articles in 2005 only about 50% of Wikipedia’s content was found to be factually accurate. While Wikipedia may be a source of interest or amusement for some surfing the internet, it should not be treated as a reliable source for purposes of research. In some circles, students have started to rely, at least in some part, on Wikipedia as a resource for their research activities. More collegiate professors that ever are now concerned about the online encyclopedia and are barring their students from using any content from it (Jaschik, 2007). Wikipedia may be an easily accessed and used source of information, but it remains far from a valid or accepted one. Even college librarians are entering the fray. According to Jaschik (2007), in the realm of college librarians, a major topic of discussion lately has centered on guiding students to doing research correctly and accurately. This level of concern from educators and other members of academia has manifest itself against the backdrop of Wikipedia being such an popular and user-friendly resource for students. Credibility of Sources The credibility of sources needs to be evaluated in line with accepted standards in a consistent fashion to ensure validity. The following guidelines for evaluating online resources are recommended by University Libraries (2011): Be sure that the author has expertise on the topic, the source of the content is stated, the content can be independently verified from other sources, the level and depth of the information meets your needs, an attractive, professional-looking presentation doesn't fool you into accepting all the material at face value, up-to-date information is provided for topics that require it, the site address (URL) is relevant to the the material, e.g., .edu for educational or research materials, .org for profit or non-profit organizations. The importance of using an accepted guide for determining validity of inline resources, preferably from a collegiate library, cannot be overstated. Since Wikipedia lacks many of the criteria above—or at best can boast an inconsistent level of verification in these areas—it should not be considered a reliable, verified, scholarly reviewed, or valid source of information. Conclusion Wikipedia remains a highly popular and user-friendly website for people who seek general information and can serve as a jumping-off point for people doing academic research in their quest to locate more verifiable sources of information. The general cases for and against Wikipedia have been discussed in this essay in a fair and balanced way, and the reader is encouraged to draw his or her own conclusions. In any case, this resource should always be considered an unreliable research tool in and of itself. This author has presented a clear and relatively strong argument against the use of Wikipedia as a service to be used for academic research. Aside from the experiences and opinions of students, academics and professionals, the overarching issue of the inconsistencies presented by Wikipedia’s content in relation to standardized evaluation criteria is concerned validates and supports the author’s position against the use of Wikipedia as an accepted resource for academic research. References Barnes, M. (2005, October 24). Can You Trust Wikipedia' Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/oct/24/comment.newmedia Chandler, C. and Gregory, A. (2010).  Sleeping with the Enemy: Wikipedia in the College   Classroom. History Teacher; Feb, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p247-257 Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved on April 17, 2011 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki Templeton, G. (2011, April 4) Is wikipedia a valid source for research' Retrived on April 17, 2011 from http://www.the-peak.ca/article/19385 University Libraries. State University of New York at Albany. (2011). Evaluating web content. Retrieved on April 17, 2011 from http://library.albany.edu/usered/eval/evalweb/ Wikipedia. (2011, April 13). Wikipedia: About. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About