Posted on March 19, 2006
In today’s technologically savvy world, information is available on just about any topic, from why people born in Southeast Asia tend to have less body hair than those born in Italy or why green is worn on St. Patrick’s Day.
Just Wikipedia it.
“I use it for fun, and I think it’s interesting that you’re reading things from different people’s perspectives,” senior Shaun Bockert said. “I feel it’s the ultimate subjective encyclopedia, and I think that’s a good thing, because it doesn’t attempt an objective standpoint; it doesn’t have the same hidden biases kind of like why people watch ‘The Daily Show’ or Fox News. You know what you’re getting from it.”
A wiki is a collaborative Web page that allows users to change the content of the site. Wikipedia, created in 2001, is a Web-based encyclopedia that can be edited by almost anyone, contrasted with the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is only edited by scholars.
“I use it if I need a quick overview of a topic, because accuracy probably isn’t its defining feature,” said Gerald Gill, head of reference at Carrier Library. “It’s a place to get your bearings on a subject so you can further find information, but I don’t think it’s good for in-depth research or analysis just as I wouldn’t rely on any other encyclopedia for those things.”
Wikipedia has more articles than any other encyclopedia ever published, Gill said.
Nature, a weekly scientific journal, used peer review to compare Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica in the realm of entries related to the sciences. Of the 42 tested entries, the journal found that for every four inaccurate Wikipedia entries, there were three inaccurate Britannica entries.
“I think it’s accurate for the most part, though the only reason why some professors don’t like it because it’s not peer reviewed,” senior Thomas Martin said. “I use it for statistics and regression; mostly math topics because it gives good diagrams that the book doesn’t explain or I just need to look at it from a different angle.”
Said Gill: “It’s almost as accurate as the Britannica in the area of science and technology, but in the social sciences, where facts aren’t clear there are disputes that emerge.”
There is a common consensus among students and professors on the dangers of Wikipedia’s forum that allows anyone to edit. Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source because it is not reviewed by many scholars like other peer-reviewed journals.
“I hate it, and I won’t use it except for sometimes on non-academic things for which I feel there’s no real definition,” Professor Valerie Sulfaro said. “You don’t know who the people making the entries are and especially in the realm of politics; I worry students who read it are gaining false information.”
The Telegraph, a daily paper based in the United Kingdom, recently reported that an editor of Wikipedia’s religion section, who claimed to be a professor of theology, turned out to be a 24-year-old college dropout.
“I’m against the use of Wikipedia for academic purposes because you don’t know the credentials of the writers,” Professor Gary Kirk said. “It’s a useful source though for pop culture, or as the first step in finding out about a topic, because their entries tend to be cited with links.”
