Wikipedia as a Research Source

     I was standing in a one hour line waiting to experience the Black Widow at Kennywood Park when I heard two high school students discussing their past research projects.  To my dismay they were extolling the virtues of Wikipedia, each exclaiming that Wikipedia pulled them through six research papers last year.  That was it.  No mention of incredible educational databases, expert written reference works or publisher reviewed non-fiction books. Just Wikipedia. My immediate thought was “Has no one explained to these young men why Wikipedia is not the best source to cite in a research paper?”

     Online research has become a standard in my middle school as it has in most middle and high schools.  I, as the librarian, teach my students that research means exhausting the library of all pertinent information sources.  My students come away with the trained knowledge that a research project is not done until every available print and digital source has been mined of ALL valuable information.  Yet my students still want to quote Wikipedia as their main source of information.

     It is ironic that Wikipedia has spurred such a fierce debate among educators considering that Wikipedia articles are big conversations among anyone who wishes to debate or discuss the topic.  On the one side of the debate are educators that ban the use of Wikipedia on their assignments and librarians who declare Wikipedia is not suitable for citation in a research project.  On the other side are those who feel Wikipedia will provide valuable information because it is a forum composed of many voices around the world.  Could it be that a compromise can be found somewhere in the middle that allows young researchers to consult but not quote Wikipedia while doing a research project?

     A plan is needed before setting our students loose on Wikipedia.  First, a librarian/student discussion of what Wikipedia is will help our students learn to use but limit how they use Wikipedia to get that research project done. Wikipedia was first launched in 2001 as an open forum and is a “wiki” website meaning that multiple users can easily access content making changes, additions and deletions within the original article.  This ability to edit is at the heart of the naysayer’s argument that Wikipedia should never be used for academic research.

     Those who are proponents of the site would argue that the articles in Wikipedia are constantly monitored and updated through world-wide collaboration.  The articles are scrutinized and analyzed for accuracy by the editors of Wikipedia and by the users themselves.  Doesn’t that guarantee that the content would be accurate and therefore usable for a student research project? That is a good question to ponder, but a better question is who is guaranteeing that all the added content is from reliable sources. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that the original articles are often filled with inaccuracies and are refined after much collaboration.  This acknowledgment points to the very problem of citing Wikipedia articles in research projects.  The issue is not just the accuracy of the articles but also it is about who contributes to the articles and when these contributions are made.  Has the article a student is citing been through the refinement process to the point of complete accuracy if complete accuracy is even possible?  Are the contributors experts in their field and have the changes been made in a timely manner to support the use of the Wikipedia article in a student’s research project. Should students be wary of information contributed by authors of unknown qualifications?

When making the choice to cite Wikipedia in research assignments, students must consider the ever-changing nature of the articles and the credibility of the contributing writers.  According to the National Writing Project White Paper  Wikipedia: Friend or Foe, “Wikipedia’s transparency and participatory nature invites visitors to question what they’re reading in ways that static, expert driven reference texts do not.”

     Wikipedia pushes students to their own analysis of the articles and decision to use Wikipedia information or not in their own writing.  Teachers and professors often make the decision for the student by saying “NO” when asked if Wikipedia is a valid source for research projects.  When given the choice, however, the burden is placed on the students to analyze what they read in Wikipedia and determine how they will use the information gained from the articles.

     In Wikipedia’s own disclaimer found at the bottom of the site’s page, Wikipedia states “ … Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information….Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.”  These are words that should make students wary of including Wikipedia information in their research projects and citing Wikipedia as a valuable source of information.

     Perhaps students should listen to advice from the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales when asked "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia (Business Week 2005)”   He replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either.  Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level."  That “level” should be found in other sources that can be checked for authority, credibility, accuracy and currency. So to answer the question “Should students use Wikipedia for their research project?”  the answer is truly found in the middle of the argument.  With their eyes wide open to the downfalls of a Wikipedia article, students should read the article as a jumping off point for their projects but they should fact check every idea found in the Wikipedia article with other credible sources. Including Wikipedia in their search for truth along with a multitude of other sources is exactly what Wikipedia does in allowing ALL who have a voice join in a world-wide conversation.