I like Wikipedia; I find it to be a great resource for a vast array of information, and it is very straightforward in its operation. That said, I’m not about to ever rely on Wikipedia information for scholarly research. I use Wikipedia to answer basic questions fast, when speed is more important than iron-clad accuracy. If I need to know right now the location of Waziristan, a list of the world’s highest waterfalls, or a recap on the latest political fiasco, Wikipedia is the place for me. However, while I may visit Wikipedia for ideas or suggestions in my academic studies, I simply cannot confidently base my work on information taken the ever-changing nature of the site.
Wikipedia is a wonderful online database, and the history covered in its innumerable pages tends to be quite accurate; this is clearly explained in Professor Rosenzweig’s article. The presence of the ‘Recent Changes Patrol’ and ‘Personal Watchlists’ he mentions remain formidable barriers to those who would permanently alter Wikipedia pages, but the risk always exists. Though a page dealing with a subject like 9/11 understandably is under a great deal of scrutiny, the majority of pages receive far, far less attention, and a dedicated problem poster, if they were careful, could change them in ways which might persist for a long time. In the end, the greatest strength of Wikipedia is also its greatest liability. Anyone can post, but they are essentially anonymous, not under any sort of obligation to explain themselves or their opinions. If information I gain from a book turns out to be incorrect, I can place the blame on the author. When it comes to Wikipedia, I have no one at which to point the finger other than myself.
I have to ask here as well. As researchers, shouldn’t it be our responsibility to ensure that our research is correct? I agree that Wikipedia doesn’t show up on my works cited pages, but do you think it would really fly if we quoted from/relied on any source that is incorrect in its information?
I guess it would have been more accurate for me to have said that, while every effort should be made to ensure that we use reliable sources, even the best of sources isn’t perfect. On many occasions, new discoveries or developments have shown previously widely held facts or views to be incorrect. A misquote can pass through innumerable channels if not caught early; a popular, if misguided professional opinion can sway a lot of people. I believe that, should information upon which I based research turn out later to be incorrect, it is far better to be able to site fully where that data came from, rather than have to state that I got it from a bunch of anonymous guys on Wikipedia.
I don’t think that anyone should necessarily tell their students to use Wikipedia as a credible source; however, it is a great to way to get started on finding credible sources. It is an excellent way to get your feet wet with sources. In the bibliography section, they are almost always good starter sources. I recommend this to my students, but tell them to never even dare thinking about listing a Wikipedia page in their paper’s reference page.
I agree that the free, anonymous and democratic nature of Wikipedia’s open source collaboration can have its flaws, but that can be a good thing. Since Wikipedia’s neutral point of view rule ensures that even all credible viewpoints are included. Therefore, you can word something as “John Doe of XYZ University argues against this notion…” with a citing of a valid source, since it is factual and neutral. If someone were to try and remove this, users can take issue, since it really doesn’t violate anything. Since historians interpret and try to come to a conclusion, they can decide to not include something.
Therefore, I personally think that Wikipedia is a great way to crowd source, drawing on more people for historical writing. I personally don’t have a problem with someone not having proper credentials and/or disclosing biographic information, just as long as they can show valid proof.