Putting together my first research project in second grade (“The Mighty Hippopotamus,” on which I received an A) I had my first lesson in using academic sources. Back then, the books were 20 pages long, and encyclopedias were an acceptable reference. In fact, we were chastised if we did not use World Book as a source.
By the time I got to high school, the opposite was true. Encyclopedias were too broad and not updated quickly enough to make my teachers happy. We were taught to use online databases to search for scholarly articles. The huge, expensive books we relied on when we were younger began to gather dust.
Today, the encyclopedia has been resurrected. Combining a comprehensive volume of information and Internet database searching, Wikipedia.com has become a widely accepted knowledge resource, especially among younger generations. With over four million articles in its online database, including entries on people, modern culture and specific events, Wikipedia is incredibly thorough. Links connecting entries help to provide a broader frame of reference for the reader as well. Wikipedia is completely free and available in over 200 languages.
Wikipedia, however, has added a new element to the information mix, which has academia up in arms: anyone can create and edit entries. That includes you, me, and my five-year-old cousin, should she find something worth saying.
Wikimedia, the non-profit company that owns and manages Wikipedia.com, claims it is equally if not more reliable than traditional encyclopedias, because by allowing everyone to contribute, it is tapping into a wider pool of knowledge. The entries are monitored for accuracy by volunteer moderators, and according to Wikipedia, the more people sign up to edit pages, the more accurate they will be. Any visitor to the site can add or edit an entry.
Changes made to an article are logged on a “Recent Changes” page, where it is potentially looked over by the 2.34 million registered Wikipedians, as well as those who surf anonymously. Wikipedia keeps track of who edits which articles (and can track anonymous editors by IP address), so if there is a problem user, their account can be banned.
Recently, comedian Steven Colbert encouraged his audience to challenge Wikipedia’s reliability by editing an entry on elephants to say their population had tripled in the last six months. The article was quickly locked by a moderator from being edited and Colbert’s account was banned from the site.
Arguably, Colbert’s public call to his viewers was a tip-off to Wikimedia, but other articles have also been locked from editing in the past that have sparked debates, such as entries on George W. Bush or gay marriage. If entries begin to shy from fact and move toward opinion, moderators screen out the offending material. Entries have also been completely locked to prevent any editing from taking place at all.
The exponential growth of Wikipedia from its debut in 2001 (with less than 20 thousand articles and only 18 languages) proves Wikipedia is here to stay. As it continues to gain ground and respect, it also continues to draw criticism. I believe Wikipedia’s potential is huge. I have spent hours on the site on more than one occasion, reading about a huge variety of topics that are interwoven with links.
Although I don’t feel Wikipedia can or will be considered an acceptable academic source anytime soon, I do believe that the abundance of articles and the enormous human database it draws its information from (you, in other words) make Wikipedia an invaluable resource for general knowledge about pretty much everything.