Understanding Wikipedia
Since its founding in 2001, “Wikipedia” has exploded in growth, providing Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics. But the accuracy of information on Wikipedia cannot be taken for granted. The site itself writes that "while some of the articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly rubbish...use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and isn't." To attain such an understanding, read on.
Expand All
Collapse All
Email ThisWhat Wikipedia Is, and How it Works
Wikipedia, as the name suggests, uses a "wiki" system to build out its... read more»
Using Wikipedia Effectively
With a database of over two million articles and an enthusiastic community of editors, Wikipedia... read more»
Potential Flaws of Wikipedia
Wikipedia’s anarchic nature has led to some major criticism. Some of the more important and relevant critiques for wary Internet researchers are discussed in-depth below.
Dulcinea's Insight
- As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, it’s subject to changes by users who falsify entries. Wikipedia claims that peer reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism.” However, it’s been shown that for less researched topics, the false information can remain online for extended periods of time. When surfing Wikipedia, take the information you read with a grain of salt. It’s recommended to never cite Wikipedia in any academic work.
- In 2007, it was discovered that individuals with a clear conflict of interest had written some Wikipedia entries. This occurred after a computer programmer created the Web site "WikiScanner." Researchers using this site could trace Wikipedia edits to their sources and found that some supposed "facts" were coming from biased sources. Employees from companies such as the New York Times Company and Congressional offices were editing Wikipedia entries superficially and substantively in their employer's favor.
- When trying to find information on current events, Wikipedia's reliability heads south quickly. Peer reviewers often don’t have time to quickly review new articles and remove any intentionally or unintentionally created statements that are untrue. This “Washington Post” column relays how news of former Enron executive Kenneth Lay’s death was initially distorted by Wikipedia writers.
Dulcinea's Picks
For criticisms of Wikipedia …
Wikipedia
hosts an article called “Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia.” Number six on this list explains that the quality of the content is often suspect, and that Wikipedia does not expect readers to trust them.
The Guardian
provides a decent summary of some of the prevalent academic criticisms of Wikipedia. The article also acknowledges some of the benefits that Wikipedia can provide. Although an older article, it will still prove useful to readers.
USAToday.com
presents the story of John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy who was defamed on Wikipedia for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge. Read this foreboding tale of the potential deep harm of Wikipedia vandalism and its sometimes intensely personal effects.
The International Symposium on Online Journalism
hosts a research paper by Assistant Professor Cindy Royal and graduate student Deepina Kapila, both of Texas State University. Download the PDF to read about the inherent bias in Wikipedia due to its contributor demographics.
San Francisco Gate
has a summary of ethic violation charges Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is now facing from multiple angles. Although he denies all accusations, individuals are claiming that Wales both improperly used Wikipedia Foundation funds and violated Wikipedia’s own rules in editing an ex-girlfriend’s profile.
For an alternative …
Citizendium
was created by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger as an academic wiki-based alternative to Wikipedia. Credentialed experts are required to approve articles before are finalized and although anyone can contribute, no anonymous editors are allowed.
Who knew?
Skeletor
gets in the final word on He-Man’s “disputed” Wikipedia legacy.
Most Recent Guides
© 2009 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
