Can We Trust Wikipedia? Methinks Not Very Much
Posted: Sunday, November 22, 2009
by Joel Kontinen
http://joelkontinen.blogspot.com/
Is there a credibility problem with Wikipedia? Some people think that the information on the free internet encyclopedia that many if not most of as take for granted is not as reliable as it could be.
Recently, an instructor at a major UK University recommended lowering the grades of any MA-level students who used Wikipedia as a source in their essays. He advised students to use primary sources instead. Wikipedia, he seems to think, causes students to be lazy and careless with their research.
It is easy for bias to creep into a text. All of us have our assumptions about reality and they can often be seen in our writing. Thus, when one writes or edits an article for Wikipedia, the result is seldom if ever an objective view of reality. It is always an interpretation of the facts, the way we see the world.
There is some evidence for this view. For instance, skeptics have admitted that they have been using Wikipedia to further their agenda. They have even used it to link to their own sites. In this kind of war of words, truth is often the first victim.
While Wikipedia might be a quick and to some extent also a good source of information, we should probably not take everything we see in it at face value.
This Article has been viewed 936 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)Hi Joel.
"It is easy for bias to creep into a text. All of us have our assumptions about reality and they can often be seen in our writing. Thus, when one writes or edits an article for Wikipedia, the result is seldom if ever an objective view of reality. It is always an interpretation of the facts, the way we see the world." Isn't this true of any information disseminated in any manner? And in my book, anyone who takes anything they hear or read anywhere at face value is an idiot. Harsh words, hunh? Brings up a very existential question of what is real and what is not.Personally, I like Wikipedia. It's a great and easy source of lots of information and viewpoints. But I don't believe everything I read there out of hand.Thanks for your thoughts,DianneHi, Dianne. Yes, you're right. But an encyclopedia is supposed to be somewhat objective. I'm not saying Wikipedia is useless but what I'm calling for is some healthy skepticism.Regards, Joel
Thanks for the head's up - yes, bias can creep in - have noticed that on other "sources" too even snopes etc. MarijoYes indeed. Thanks, Marijo.Regards, Joel
The old saying, 'it's written down so it must be true', doesn't really apply to Wikipedia. Anyone can update or write on any subject, so it is more of a 'common information blog' than an online encyclopedia. Still, it's fun to read.Thanks Michael, you're right.
Great article. Well done.I would never trust a wiki for a subject I don't know about. However I would say that Wikipedia is a good resource if only people would be careful and not overly trusting of content.I recall while in Australia I was watching The Morning Show and one of the presenters was saying how, according to Wikipedia he had been found dead the night before.Thanks. I lost my faith in Wikipedia ages ago for somewhat similar reasons.
I believe--and this is what all my professors have told me--that Wikipedia is good as a starting point to give a general overview, and it often has references to the primary sources that you can use. However, never USE Wikipedia as a direct source!! Some of my profs would fail a paper entirely if someone did.Yes, exactly. Wikipedia might suggest where we can find the primary sources but due to its ever-changing nature it is not an acceptable source as such.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.