Is Wikipedia Reliable?

Site Reviewer

Is Wikipedia Reliable?

By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers.

Here are some points to consider:

• Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.

• Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.

• Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.

• Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.

Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example

• There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.

• Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.

• The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.

Source

Active Member

They even offer you to enrich a paper/article. Anyone can do that. Who knows the editor's sources , purposes and reliability?

______o-o-o-o-0-0- Orléans Ville English Language Teachers' Forum -0-0-o-o-o-o______

Guest, watch your thought , it becomes your words...Watch your words they become your actions...Watch your actions they become your habits...Watch your habits they become your character...Watch your character it becomes your destiny

Inspector

Wikipedia is not accepted as a reference in scientific papers.
thank you, Madam!