Wikipedia: A Case Study

Wikipedia

Wikipedia; a company dedicated to the accessibility of information, but at what cost does accessibility come. Wikipedia has been under much scrutiny as the open source information website allows its users to make edits to its content to ensure the information is constantly evolving and relevant. The controversy comes in light of making sure the information is accurate and unbiased which has plagued Wikipedia since its inception. College professors across the globe are forbidding students from using it as a valid research tool stating the website is not to be trusted (Maslanka, 2006). In a Wikipedia search under “Reliability of Wikipedia” the site states that the reliability of the site, “is assessed in several ways, including statistically, comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the writing process” (Reliability of Wikipedia).

Wikipedia understands that its content may not contain fully accurate information or even biased information; it is the idea that the demand for accuracy will eventually overcome and through debate and discussion will create for a more factual representation of information (About - Wikipedia). Fundamentally speaking this is a sound approach as the supply and demand model tends to shape the world we live in. It seems reasonable, yet possibly unconventional, to apply this concept to knowledge. It involves taking a leap of faith and using more than one source for your information; which from personal experience, most professors have you do anyway.

Controlling Information

Wikipedia uses a variety of methods to try and control their content. Of course is their principle philosophy of the user being the fundamental control over the information provided. Other methods of control used by Wikipedia are, “peer review, good article assessment, and the featured article,” (About - Wikipedia). The good article assessment is something that Wikipedia assigns an article after it has been reviewed; this allows the reader to understand that the content is of good, reviewed quality. The featured article also puts articles out in a very visible sense to ensure that people are reading it and hopefully, review the content for accuracy.

Also, an article on unethical editing practices taking place at Wikipedia mentions a new source of control called the WikiScanner. The WikiScanner, “consists of a publicly searchable database that links millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to the organizations where those edits apparently originated,” (WikiScanner). This can help to track down bias or self serving edits which is intended to lead to a more honest level of wiki editing.

Wikipedia searches the three modes of control in the sense that the initial information input into the wiki serves as the input. The input is then subject to the process which involves peer review, professional review, and information sourcing. The output comes in the form of the final results of the reviewed and corrected information.

Evaluation

Whereas many make the argument for Wikipedia’s relevance as a research tool the argument could be made that Wikipedia is the best place to start your research. Wikipedia does not at any point make the claim that the information on their site is valid, but because it is subject to constant peer review it is an excellent place to springboard ideas from.

The primary argument that gets left out of the Wikipedia debate is that when conducting research, your factual information needs to come from more than one source anyway; regardless of whether it’s been the subject of a peer or professional review. I think this argument is exemplified in the article titled “Academics question Wikipedia’s credibility”.

In the article an English professor talks about his experience with Wikipedia and how he came across “factual” errors in a post. He would make the changes but the original author would just change it right back. This professor now advises his students not to use Wikipedia as a resource (Maslanka, 2006).

The problem with this debate is that the professor is assuming he has the correct information, as does the original author. Since there is an obvious stalemate further research needs to be conducted to hopefully uncover the realities of the information and students should use Wikipedia in this sense. I often use Wikipedia as a starting point for my research but because professors will not allow it I wind up not being able to use it as a citation reference. The reality of the situation is that I’m not quoting or using information directly from Wikipedia, but I’m finding information to help develop my research.

To not allow Wikipedia as a reference source is to do a great discredit to the act of research. Research is the act of sorting through information in the pursuit of a conclusion. Many well researched conclusions have been discredited but the discredited information is what allowed for the actual conclusion to be reached. Wikipedia is at its core, this process in action.

Room for improvement

One proactive measure Wikipedia could take would be to enhance their “good article” label and take it a step further into a full blown grading system. Articles would be graded based upon the level of review of their content and edits should be allowed based upon the grade. Any edits made to an article with an A+ grade would have to come with full source information and be subject to a professional review before inclusion into the article. An article with the grade of F would allow for greater flexibility in the editing process but would indicate to the reader that the article has not been professionally reviewed. This measure allows Wikipedia to continue on functioning as they do yet provides a higher level of transparency into the quality of the content to the reader.

Resources

Works Cited:

About - Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Using_Wikipedia_as_a_research_tool

Haas, E. (2007, 10 26). Will Unethical Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility? Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/media/61365

Hubbard, B. (2010, 02 14). Wikipedia edits warp candidates by the minute. The Denver Post , pp. A-01.

Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., Fandt, P. M., & Michlitsch, J. F. (2007). Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Maslanka, K. (2006, 04 20). Academics Question Wikipedia's Credibility. Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from The Ithican: http://www.ithaca.edu/ithacan/articles/0604/20/news/6academics.htm

Pallaris, C., & Costigan, S. S. (2007). Shared Knowledge, Join Pursuits; International Relations Beyond the Age of Information. Chicago, IL.

Reliability of Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia

WikiScanner. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiscanner