I am a big fan of Wikipedia. Although I expect to never use it as a sole source of information in any of my posts (ahem: with the exception of this article), I do often use it as a starting point when researching any subject, and I often click on some of the references cited in Wikipedia entries to follow-up on whatever I am researching. You will see me referencing Wikipedia articles often.
Wikipedia warns that “nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information” (Wikipedia contributors, 2020a). In addition, they warn that, as a community-built reference, it may contain errors. Yet, I often cite Wikipedia for two reasons:
- First, I do typically use it as a starting point and in combination with other sources in my posts. It’s encyclopedic nature – comprehensive, even if not necessarily in-depth – make it exactly the great starting point it is intended to be;
- Second, because it is a community-built source and because it has come to occupy such a central role as reference on the internet, it is actually very subject to spot checking and reviews, even if not necessarily by recognized specialists in any given area, and not consistently for all entries. I do use my judgment on what entries I am more likely to trust. I am more likely to trust one on, say, butterflies, than one on a small country’s minor dictator from a hundred years ago, where there may be less people capable of or interested in verifying, as well as less reliable sources. A subject for which there is less information and is of less general interest will not receive the same amount and frequency of authoritative checks.
Some minimum parameters do exist for Wikipedia entries: based on its “About” page: material “must fit within Wikipedia’s policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source. Editors’ opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain.” And “many experienced editors are watching to ensure that edits are improvements. […] its contributors work on improving quality, removing or repairing misinformation and other errors” (Wikipedia contributors, 2020b).
As food for thought: compare what you find on Wikipedia to what you would typically find circulating on social media about any specific subject. I know, that is a very low bar but, nonetheless, it illustrates that it is possible to build value collaboratively under certain rules and within defined processes (I am now thinking of open source software, but will leave that for another post).
For those ready to never read one of my posts again, check the article on “Criticism of Wikipedia” on ummm…shhh, Wikipedia: Wikipedia contributors, 2020.
References
Wikipedia contributors, 2020a. “Wikipedia: General Disclaimer,” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. Accessed: October 25, 2020.
Wikipedia contributors, 2020b. “Wikipedia: About,” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About. Accessed: October 25, 2020.
Wikipedia contributors, 2020c. “Criticism of Wikipedia,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia/ Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=985922235. Accessed: November 1, 2020.