News flash: Wikipedia is not always accurate
April 30th, 2008By Justin Lopinot
I’ve been grading papers this week (a LOT of papers) for the two college courses that I’m teaching. I keep running into a problem: Students citing Wikipedia as a source. It’s not just in my classes that I see Wikipedia being overly legitimatized. A colleague of mine (bless her heart) recently used the Web site to define the term “journalist.”
As I’ve found while working here at Standing Partnership, not everything found on Wikipedia is accurate. We regularly find incorrect information on the pages for our clients. And because it’s frowned upon when the actual company or a PR agency attempts to correct mistakes (an outsider must do that), the process is quite complicated and frustrating.
In future semesters, I plan to tell my students, “Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information for your assignments. It’s an open-source wiki, and just about anybody can post information on the site with little verification of its factual merits.” I will also tell then that they are welcome to use Wikipedia as a starting point — it’s great for that — but they need to verify the information through a more legitimate source.
I’m somewhat of a cynic, so perhaps I’m overreacting. What do you think?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Okay, Justin, you knew I had to defend using Wikipedia.
I did not use Wikipedia because it’s the most accurate reference or because it provides a black-and-white definition. I used it because I needed a working definition. I found that the Merriam Webster definition didn’t suffice for my post.
journalist - 1 a: a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b: a writer who aims at a mass audience.
Unfortunately, Merriam Webster couldn’t provide the most current definition, given the way news dissemination is constantly changing. I used the Wikipedia entry to start a conversation that the Merriam Webster dictionary couldn’t start.
That being said, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used as a formal reference. It’s a good starting point for research, but it definitely shouldn’t be used as the final authority.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
In my grad school classes, it specifically says on the syllabi that wikipedia may not be used as a source. I’ll admit that I use it for general research, but if it must be cited, I find something else legitimate.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Maya and Sarah: I agree with what you both are saying. Even I (the great basher of Wikipedia as a source) have looked to the site for information. However, like Sarah pointed out, facts need to be checked out elsewhere. By the way, I wouldn’t trust Merriam-Webster (see the hyphen - another of my pet peeves) either. That’s because the official dictionary used in our field is Webster’s New World College Dictionary. I have had a copy at my desk for the past 10 years. It’s like the Bible of dictionaries.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Sarah’s rule is great.
High Google ranking doesn’t equal high credibility, although it’s hard to remember that. Wikipedia is a great reference, but don’t swear by it!
May 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Uh huh.
Dateline 1989: All my college profs tell me the Internet isn’t an acceptable source for reference citations.
Fight the wind, brother. I wish you luck.