Is Wikipedia Reliable?

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.

These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.

Comments (4)

Posted by SMS MAY 31, 2009 | 02:01PM
You said it, but I wish to elaborate. Wikipedia can be an excellent starting place in that it answers that all time question, "Where do I start?". A good entry on Wikipedia cites enough resources, with links, that anyone can investigate and this is where you can really springboard your own research after reading the summary that Wikipedia offers. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, the politics and beliefs of the author may color the article, which is why you truly need to continue your own study of the subject, so you may get a larger view, and be able to form your own opinions and conclusions. However, it still remains an excellent starting point to study many subjects,

(Report comment)
Posted by redmonkey JUNE 01, 2009 | 09:52AM
I believe Wikipedia is not a good search engine. Also that when doing projects dont use it because it is not reliable and people change and add info all the time. Some entry are true and well written but some are stupid. If you dont have any true information then why post it on a web site? That is stupid,a waste on time, and childish.

(Report comment)
Posted by ianam DECEMBER 07, 2009 | 04:22PM
"I believe Wikipedia is not a good search engine." It's not a search engine at all. Really, you aren't a reliable source for what is or is not stupid. The fact is that Wikipedia generally is a highly reliable source of information, even on the subject of its own reliability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

(Report comment)
Posted by Angela JANUARY 26, 2010 | 09:50AM
I believe that they are somewhat reliable just check into the information sources and if they seem credible I think you should be good to go.

(Report comment)