The web is a common information resource for student research papers. Though highly popular, Wikipedia is not considered a trusted source for research references.
Students are adept at finding and using online resources. It is important to help them understand how to determine the reliability of information on a web site. Wikipedia is a popular site for information, from general knowledge to very advanced topics. Though its pages are frequently reviewed both Wikipedia and outside sources, including Thomas Chesney's 2006 emperical research, find that as many as 13 percent of its pages contain errors.
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia started in 2001. It is based on wiki software, which allows users to add, edit and remove content from any page. This open environment of collaboration that allows anyone to change information brings frequent questions about the reliability of the information on its pages. Wikipedia has features in place to allow authors to question published information and tracks the history of changes. Some of its pages are also vandalized or debated information changed, which is why it’s authority for accurate information is frequently questioned.
Educational Uses
One of the results teachers envision for students to achieve when writing research papers is that the information is accurate and credible. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not neatly fall into the categories of accurate or credible. One argument for Wikipedia’s use as a resource is that the more people who contribute information the more accurate that information will become. However, it can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks before errors are found or corrected.
Consider the estimate of 13 percent of pages containing errors. Then suppose Wikipedia has 2,000,000 articles. That would be 260,000 incorrect articles. Another way to look at this is that almost 1 out of every 8 articles contains errors.
Wikipedia’s popularity is difficult to deny. It is available in multiple languages and frequently a first stop by many when seeking information. Experts publish and maintain articles to promote knowledge of their fields. Towns provide data, statistics and attractions. According to Alexa, a web information company, Wikipedia is the 12th most visited site in the US with almost 11 million visitors per day.
Instead of banning students from using Wikipedia, show them how to use it wisely. At the end of each article is a list of references and external links. These are provided in support of the information in the article and can examined to determine the credibility of the Wikipedia page itself. Students can then follow these links and find sources of information for their paper that are also considered reliable.
The copyright of the article Wikipedia's Credibility in Online Student Resources is owned by Tammy Andrew. Permission to republish Wikipedia's Credibility in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Chesney clearly distinguishes between accuracy and reliability (wish I
could read the whole study!).
The accuracy (validity) of an
instrument such as an academic achievement test means that it measures what
it intends or purports to measure. So Chesney agrees that Wikipedia
content is accurate or valid: its content is generally correct.
The reliability of an instrument refers to its ability to give similar
results on a similar test sample under similar circumstances. Today at
work, our electronics engineer showed me the test results of three
factory-calibrated instruments measuring the same sample. They varied by
30%. These instruments boast a 2% accuracy which they fail to deliver.
Clearly, the instruments are not reliable, and without a known external
referent, it is impossible to tell which - if any - of the three is
accurate.
Is the 13% error rate mentioned by Chesney egregious
or merely typical of 'factual' sources in general? I would guess that for
newspapers, for example, the error rate is similar or higher. Chesney
states that Wikipedia content is not reliable. One can presume that this
is because its content varies over time. It is perhaps not so much the
*accuracy* of Wikipedia as the *instability* that jeopardizes its value as
a source.
The same thing might be said of Suite 101.
Mar 15, 2009 4:21 PM
Tammy Andrew :
Thank you for pointing out the accuracy verses reliability of online
sources. After reviewing my source and this article again I realized that
my conclusion was misstated and have updated it. This in and of itself
shows that any web based source can suffer from instability when used as a
reference; the content may be credible or correct but may not be the same
wording or specific information from when cited to when reviewed by another
person.
As for the error rate of newspapers, I did investigate
the error rate but have found data mostly concerned with the daily error
rate. That daily rate is also divided into two categories as to
informational errors and errors concerning correctly stating or spelling
persons' or locations' names. I do not have access to enough raw data to
try to calculate Chesney's data and the newspaper data in a similar
fashion, but would not be surprised to find that they are similar.
Jul 17, 2009 4:11 PM
Terence P Ward :
You are absolutely correct to suggest students use Wikipedia to gather
information from secondary sources. All encyclopedia are tertiary sources,
and as such are unacceptable for serious research.
As to the
question of accuracy, Nature magazine found that for scientific articles,
it is on par with Britannica
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html), which
suggests that the experiment in collective intelligence is working. Not
surprisingly, Britannica disputes their findings.
Wikipedia is
fluid, however, and the accuracy of any article may change over time in a
way that it would not in Britannica. If students stick to the rule of not
using encyclopedia as sources, this won't actually matter.
As to
Mr. Gray's comparison to the accuracy rate at Suite101, I would have to
disagree. A typical Suite101 article is only reviewed by the author and
one editor, while Wikipedia articles rarely have less than a five and may
have hundreds of editors checking it for accuracy. I would have to think
Wikipedia is less likely to contain errors.
Jul 22, 2009 2:05 PM
Thomas Alan Gray :
Actually, my comment on Suite101 was directed to its fluidity (good term)
more than to its accuracy. Authors can edit articles after publication, as
Tammy Andrew apparently did in the present case.
