Our Blog: where do you stand?
Next Entry | Previous Entry | All Blog Entries | Subscribe to Feed
News flash: Wikipedia is not always accurate
By: Justin Lopinot | 04/30/2008
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?
Posted in Uncategorized
comments
Sarah says:
Wed, April 30, 2008 at 11:20: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.
Justin Lopinot says:
Wed, April 30, 2008 at 11:33: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.
Marie says:
Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:46:pm
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!
Dwight Wannabe says:
Fri, May 09, 2008 at 1:55: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.
Amy says:
Fri, August 07, 2009 at 4:25:pm
My dad and I recently had a similar conversation/debate about Wikipedia. At first, he thought it was a legitimate site/source for information. Once he understood that anybody can post most anything on the page he equated the information with information “posted on the bathroom wall.”
Justin Lopinot says:
Mon, August 10, 2009 at 8:04:am
Amy: Too funny about your dad. Well, I still think there are some uses for Wikipedia. For example, I think it’s often a great starting point for finding out information. However, you have to double-check through a legitimate source. You can’t just cite Wikipedia and be done with it.
Maya says:
Wed, April 30, 2008 at 11:20: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.
——-