Wikipedia: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source”
Sunday, 3 January 2010 Clay Burell 
Print This Post
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I wrote recently about how many of my otherwise sharp students were “Google fundamentalists” who argued, to simplify a bit, that “if it’s in Google, it’s valid.” These are often the same students who insist they should be able to use Wikipedia as a source for research.
I’ve been skimming Wikipedia’s own policies for writing and research, and Lo! The Great Wikipedia itself tells its writers the very things I was trying to tell my young fundies. Maybe hearing from the Great Wiki God’s own mouth that Wikipedia and blogs should not be taken on faith, and are not considered reliable sources, will bring them out of Digital Barbarism and into the Enlightenment.
So below, brothers and sisters in Reason, are chapter and verse from the Wikipedia Scriptures themselves, warning the faithful not to rely on Wikipedia, blogs, other wikis, forums, self-published books, or textbooks for research. Nice caveats apply in some cases to spur further discussion.
I share for those who share my pain [emphases added]:
-
Wikipedia:Reliable source examples – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
- –full Wikipedia page
-
Are wikis reliable sources?
-
Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources.
-
Are weblogs reliable sources? (more below the fold…)
In many cases, no. Most private weblogs (“blogs”), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.
-
Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.
-
Are web forums and blog talkbacks reliable sources?
Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster. Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions.
-
Briefly: published scholarly sources from academic presses should be used.
-
Wikipedia:Reliable sources – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- –full Wikipedia page here
-
Self-published and questionable sources
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions….
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
“Blogs” in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper’s full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications….
-
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.
-
Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution.
- –full Wikipedia page here
- Kicking the Habit, Day 4: Wikipedia Rising, Ant Farm Diaries Coming
- More Free Open Source Goodness: Celtx Media Pre-Production Suite
- On Using Technology Without Understanding It
- Join Me in Wikispaces’ First “Wikis in Education” Webinar Thursday Oct. 16
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: literacy, researching, wikipedia Print This Post
No. 1 — January 3rd, 2010 at 5:02 am
Would I cite Wikipedia in a paper? No. But it’s still where I turn first for an overview or to look up a quick fact.
Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia, but encyclopedias should never be considered valid sources for any sort of academic paper. At best, they’re tertiary sources.
Sadly, I think far too many teachers misunderstand this. They shouldn’t rail against Wikipedia for being editable by many or because it’s on the web—just call it an encyclopedia. Any teacher who accepts Encyclopedia Britannica as a source but not Wikipedia is a hypocrite.
Reply
No. 2 — January 3rd, 2010 at 5:08 am
Hi Morgante,
That’s why I like the following two quotes from Wikipedia in the post:
And
I don’t think any encyclopedia articles should be allowed in research papers, beyond the intro paragraph for background and context.
Reply
No. 3 — January 3rd, 2010 at 5:21 am
Clay,
First, I’ve missed seeing your picture in the tweet stream.Nice to see you posting.
I tell my students to use Wikipedia as a diving board, a place to find primary sources. They shake their collective heads and whisper, “Well, Mr. Soandso says Wikipedia is terrible and should never be used and we’ll fail the paper if we do.”
I’ll share with them your post to help them understand a little better how to use it.
P.S. Do libraries even have new encyclopedias?
Peace
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:03 am
Thanks for the moral support, Paul. Trying to get back in the saddle.
I get the same cognitive dissonance from students re: WP, so I’m glad WP itself weighs in here. It really is a useful resource for teaching literacy and source reliability.
I don’t know about libraries, but laptops sure have a lot of encyclopedias.
Happy New Year
Reply
No. 4 — January 3rd, 2010 at 5:44 am
I rarely use wikipedia. Last time I used it was for an AP Biology definition, because all of our teachers refuse to accept Wikipedia as a valid source. While most of it IS NOT valid, the problem is it is hit or miss with its accuracy.
I think that English curriculum (especially in America) doesn’t put enough emphasis on reliable sources, especially from the internet. A teacher of mine actually complained about some of the papers, because they used sources that were not legitimate. I don’t blame the teacher, because she barely had enough time to teach the basics of writing a research paper (yes, they teach it every year, even in the English 3 and AP Language class I took last year) and finishing up Macbeth.
I refuse to use Wikipedia and encyclopedias for papers, because honestly they are kind of useless outside of straight facts, and most of the papers you write in English are analysis that you cannot find there.
However, teachers now have the ability to create specialized search engines for specific topics that pull out “legitimate sources,” eliminating the work that the student has to do to find sources they can actually use.
Reply
No. 5 — January 5th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
I find it interesting that the post is written without any discussion on the meaning of ‘reliability’ or ‘reliable’.
I’m of the opinion that no bit of information – regardless of the source is value neutral. No matter how the information was generated or distributed, it carries with it a bias, slant, purpose, or agenda – however benign.
The value of information – its ‘reliability’ – then, shifts from the source to the consumer. As the consumer of the information, I determine its reliability based on the context in which I use it.
I don’t think we can generalize about the reliability of various sources. If i’m researching the history of plumbing, the sources I find reliable will be different than if I was researching how to stop a leak.
.-= Bill Warrick´s last blog ..Hiatus =-.
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:23 am
Bill, maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough: I’m talking about academic, formal research papers.
I mentioned the “interesting caveats” in the post for lengthier discussions. It wasn’t the focus of this quick post.
So I’m not bashing WP. I’m trying to save students from getting bashed in college for confusing it with peer-reviewed or otherwise authoritative sources.
For what it is (and it’s many things), WP is a wonderful tool. But it shouldn’t be confused with what it’s not.
Reply
No. 6 — January 9th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Wikipedia is not reliable, and the information provided there is in majority of situations wrong. Also, it is not neutral when there are two different reliable sources for the same matter. Because of technicalities they accept just one, even though it is proven is the wrong one.
Or they quote from one source, just enough for proving a certain point of view, omitting to quote the entire fragment that would change everything (they do not quote in the spirit of the author of the source)
When it is possible this with verifiable sources, what can we expect from sources that we can not afford to buy.
From my experience, they do not accept reference, quotes from books that are on the free domain, i.e. Archive sites, even though by indicating the place where anyone can verify information, it is much easier. With their type of site, I am forced either to buy a book or to buy their point of view made by it doesn’t matter who has a computer
It appears for me, wikipedia is just a matter of business
This is just my opinion.
Reply
Bill Warrick Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Obviously, people can go back and forth about the ‘reliability’ of wikipedia – on its own or in comparison with other sources.
The point that I was trying to make is that we need to adjust our thinking about the nature of information (as opposed to facts).
As a teacher, the students I work with don’t simply need ‘reliable facts’. I’m sorry, I know that’s sacrilege to many. What they need are the mental and technological tools necessary to gather, manipulate, assess, manage, and use the kind of information to which they’re exposed today – blogs, wikis, tweets, youtube videos. Wikipedia is one of those tools (one of MANY).
As an information source, Wikipedia is invaluable. The idea of wikipedia is one of the most breathtaking shifts in the nature of knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Through Wikipedia, everyone in the world contributes to the knowledge base of everyone else in the world. We’re moving beyond the place where ‘experts’ are the sole sources of ‘reliable information’. I have information about my place here, the events and conditions around me, and from a viewpoint that no-one else in the world has. So do you… Gathering all of those viewpoints is a good thing.
Wikipedia is current. Events of the world are almost instantaneously entered and written about. Videos and images are included. No other reference source can match that.
We see this shift in traditional news. How many (primarily local) news organizations now solicit tweets and videos from viewers? How long before those first-hand accounts ARE the news? Not long, I think.
True, wikipedia from a purely statistical point of view might not have everything right. But as a tool, it is indispensable. My students don’t need to have a book of facts, they need to understand how to make sense of the information they gather from all sources.
.-= Bill Warrick´s last blog ..Hiatus =-.
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:25 am
See my reply to your first comment above.
The key point for this post is: It shouldn’t be mistaken for a reliable source in a formal academic research paper.
As for the rest of your comment, it should be recognized for the many things it is, as you argue.
Reply
No. 7 — July 14th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Do you publish to wikipedia? You seem to know a lot of things, I feel, would make wikipedia at the very least more interesting. You may have covered this in your comments, but just stopping by shortly.
Reply
Clay Burell Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Hi Forrest,
Maybe not a bad idea, but I have to admit the idea of writing straight expository without “attitude” leaves me cold. Maybe I should assign students to?
Thanks for dropping in, hope you’re well.
B
Reply