Truth by Consensus: Wikipedia as a Scholarly Source?

By Lisa Burns
If the majority of people say that something is true, it must be true…right?

Not necessarily. As another school year comes to an end, academics continue to debate the validity of one of the top ten most visited websites in the world: Wikipedia. William Badke, in an article titled, What to Do With Wikipedia in Information Today, states, “If you want to get five opinions from four information professionals, just mention Wikipedia.” Even Hollywood is taking notice: Stephen Colbert, host of the wildly popular faux-news talk show, The Colbert Report, has coined the term “Wikiality,” with the tag, “Together, we can create a reality that we can all agree on—the reality we just agreed on.” University guidelines regarding students’ use of Wikipedia is very convoluted: Some universities automatically fail students; others accept Wikipedia as an academic resource. In an interview with Business Week, co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales says students and researchers shouldn’t cite Wikipedia, stating, “No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place.”

The question remains: What are academics supposed to do with Wikipedia? On one hand, Wikipedia has just about anything one needs to know on its website. Need a list of every Poet Laureate? What about a brief history of the fall of the Roman Empire? Wikipedia is inarguably the easiest method of obtaining information on just about everything. On the other hand, there is no peer review on Wikipedia; only volunteer watchdogs. If the majority of the watchdogs say the information is correct, then it stays on the website. Badke claims, “If the average university student can safely go to Wikipedia instead of consulting a specialized print reference source, then academia is broken.”

Some academics argue that the problem isn’t with Wikipedia. Perhaps the fact that students need to be told in the first place not to use Wikipedia is the bigger concern, and a testament to the standards of those admitted into that university. The standards of a university that admits students who may use Wikipedia needs to be examined, along with the students trying to use this user-monitored website.

Wikipedia has responded to the concerns of academia by proposing a way for academics, students and Wikipedia to work together. Wikipedia is encouraging professors to teach students how an open content website works and having students post their work on Wikipedia. By asking universities to participate with students in submitting term papers, projects or notes to the website, it is the hope of all involved that, since the world will see students’ work, an increase in dedication to the project will subsequently occur. By doing this, in theory, students will continue to work with their preferred medium, and academics can rest easy, knowing that the university-posted information is indeed accurate. Some of the schools participating in Wikiversity, as it is called, include Texas A&M, University of Hong Kong, University of Pittsburgh, Northwestern University and University of Tokyo. Professor Jon Beasley-Murray, professor at the University of British Columbia, promises his students an A+ grade if their projects are accepted as a Wikipedia Featured Article.

Some may argue that it is a student’s role to learn information rather than posing as an expert who can disseminate information. Whether you are living in Wikiality or reality, those on both sides of the Wikipedia debate need to work to make Wikipedia as accurate and unbiased as possible.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com or join the discussion on facebook.com.