Re-think Your Wiki Bias

When the internet first became widely available, users had to learn that not every site contained reliable information. Teachers sometimes refused to allow students to use internet publications at all in their assignments. Once that rule was largely relaxed, however, the Wikipedia was still considered by many to be a disreputable source. That attitude is still prevalent through much of academia today. But is it an attitude based on fact?

What is the Wikipedia?

The Wikipedia is a living website that, like an encyclopedia, contains information on thousands upon thousands of people, places, things and ideas. The pages are put together and revised by a number of different contributors. Anyone can write, revise or edit any entry, regardless of expertise.

Why is it considered a poor source?

The Wikipedia may at first glance seem like a poor source of information because of this very process. Since no single name is attached to an entry as an author, the reader seemingly cannot find out about that writer's possible biases or education regarding the subject. A good researcher will use sites that come from knowledgeable, unbiased sources. If that isn't possible, at least the researcher will be able to clearly tell what the problems are with the material.

How could it be used as a good source?

There are some guidelines in place that help make the Wikipedia a good source, however. When submitting an entry, contributors are asked to read through the wiki guidelines. One section discusses the importance of neutrality. Articles with an obvious bias are not accepted.

The content must also follow guidelines. The entry must be made up of concepts that are generally accepted by the community as existing knowledge. Contributors cannot post their own theories on the wiki. Wikipedia also has a good system in place for verifying material. Their guidelines require citations for all information, and the sources for those citations must be easily accessible by any readers. They even include some information about what makes a source reliable.

What happens if something poor gets published?

Even if an inappropriate article gets past these roadblocks and gets published, Wikipedia staff and contributors alike work to turn the entry around into a good, useable piece. Wikipedia tags areas of the article that need citations; sources that appear to be unreliable or are not easily accessible; or entire articles that need more neutral tone, more information, or proofreading.

If any portion of the article is in question, whether it is a significant aspect of the content or perhaps just the way an idea is phrased, a discussion takes place attached to the entry. At the top of each page are tabs. Conversation about the page takes place on one of those tabs, "discussion." Anyone can scroll through the dialogue taking place. Many contributors believe it is a good idea to post the points they are considering changing on this forum before actually making the modifications. One tab says "edit," where contributors can actually make changes to the page. Another allows readers to see the history of changes that have been made to the entry.

Why use the Wikipedia?

A good research assignment uses primary sources rather than secondary, so going to the original source is the best strategy for any research assignment. The Wikipedia makes that easy; all readers have to do is click on the citation for the information they want to include. That takes them to the list of references at the bottom of the page, each of which must have a link to the original.

But the bottom line is that the Wikipedia is simply a compilation of accepted information. Although the contributors themselves do not have to be well-versed in the subject, the submissions have to be verified and come from reliable sources. While any good paper will use a variety of sources rather than just one, the Wikipedia is a good site to use. Not only is the individual information good, but a discussion about the process these articles go through is a good way to teach about reliability and research.

Is this true of all wikis?

Not all wikis are created equal, of course. Other sites that are "wiki" may have some of the same standards, but others may not have the same kinds of requirements. The Wikipedia, however, is a helpful tool, good for teaching a number of concepts and using in research projects.

References

"Wikipedia: About." Wikipedia.org.