Of all the resources at a student’s disposal, few are as controversial as Wikipedia. It is reasonably easy to determine inclusion or exclusion of most written works from research for their credibility and usefulness, or lack thereof. Wikipedia, the online and publicly edited encyclopedia, struggles for its recognition as a credible source. While Wikipedia gains daily recognition as a revolutionary and indispensable tool, the validity of a publicly edited source continues to incite controversy in colleges and scholarly institutions abound.

In 2001, a previously unremarkable project called Nupedia founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger was renamed Wikipedia and made fully accessible to the public via the Internet. . Though Wikipedia was hardly an impressive achievement at the time, it quickly blossomed into a global phenomenon that today boasts a database of over 8.29 million articles in over 253 languages (“Wikipedia”). The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words “Wiki” being the Hawaiian word for quick (Orr, par. 5), and “pedia” being derived from the more common term encyclopedia, though in the technological world “wiki” is now used as a prefix or suffix to denote an online collaborative such as Wikipedia, WikiTravel, ShopWiki, and so forth.

With Wikipedia, a user is usually provided with a relatively in-depth summary of the inquired topic along with relevant media as well as links to related resources. Within a Wikipedia article a reader may click on various other names, places, topics, and so on to be redirected to an article of that subject for deeper research. Most Wikipedia articles include sources for the information which can be checked simply by clicking on the citation, and often an author includes further reading for those who may be more interested (“Wikis” 20 pars.). With Wikipedia’s many uses and extensive information contained within a convenient and universally accessible website that includes an enormous quantity of additional resources, Wikipedia’s benefits should not be denied to students as a source for education and research.

As “wikis” have become more common during this decade they have also become even more difficult to ignore as an emerging type of informational sharing. Previous and parallel forms such as blogs (essentially web journals) and social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook have also been revolutionary in further expanding and complicating the relationships between people, giving new ways to express ourselves to others. What they lack however, is the innovative revolutionary potential that wikis provide as a global collective collaboration to compile, extend, and expand the vast collection of human knowledge in real time. A collaboration that encompasses what amounts to nearly all of the literate of the human race. In the article “Beyond Wikipedia,” teacher and librarian Doug Achterman extensively explains how he has used “wikis” with his students to actually enhance the entire learning experience by allowing them to do their research interactively, then use it collectively to draw original conclusion and look at them critically (pars. 11-15).

The argument mounted against the use of Wikipedia as an educational resource claims that mass collaboration is in fact the downfall, that the accuracy and credibility of a source is compromised by its ability to be edited by almost anybody. While it can in some cases be true, as a whole it is not. The idea that knowledge is to be attained and dispensed by an in-group of elites is part of an old school of undemocratic thought that becomes ever more obsolete by each passing day. With that said, we cannot overlook the obvious benefits of a professionally educated and respected person with the credentials and expertise to author an encyclopedic article; the argument for accredited persons is by no means a preposterous preposition. What has become less acceptable in the new era of exchange is the assumption that they are the only credible people, that only from those sources may we derive our knowledge. That assumption is far from the truth and endorsing such a philosophy only limits the thought and knowledge that we provide to each successive generation.

While the credibility of Wikipedia authors is under persistent attack so too is the accuracy of the information provided on the site. This is a tactic most used in political and judicial settings to destroy the opposition; attack the credibility of the opponent, their argument can then be dismantled regardless of whether it is the superior argument. The line of reasoning that drives the fight against Wikipedia is fallacious in nature, asserting that if the author’s credibility is questionable then the information must be equally as such. However, as Mark Hariss, an English Professor at Schoolcraft College points out, “ a 2005 study commissioned by Nature revealed that Wikipedia compares favorably to Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy” (“Wikis”, par. 2). Encyclopedia Britannica is widely accepted as the most revered collection of knowledge in the English language and a winner of several awards over its two hundred and forty year history, but it has faults that hinder a researcher’s ability to gather quality information in a convenient fashion.

The Encyclopedia Britannica contains what amounts to a very limited quantity of outdated information. The last edition publish in 2005 likely took a few years for publication as most books do, after compilation that takes an average of twenty five years. This recent edition is at the very least three years out of date and is only the 15^th edition of which a 16^th is not likely for decades to come. Furthermore, it is the collaboration of only nineteen editors and four thousand authors (Pappas 524-745), of which 98% contribute for only a single article. As for ease of use the Britannica weighs several hundred pounds, consumes many cubic feet of shelf space, is comprised of dozens of books, and is often only found in libraries. Britannica now offers an online version of their encyclopedia that includes audio, video, and extended information, but access to the site is limited to those willing to pay costly subscription fees.

Ultimately, banning the use of Wikipedia will serve no function other than to deny students an easy, convenient, in depth, and relatively accurate source of information. The focus of teachers should not revolve around denying Wikipedias use, but to teach students intelligent critical thinking and judgment skills to discern good information from bad. Wikipedia is also aware that some of its articles have incorrect information and/or have been vandalized. Jim Giles describes in New Scientist magazine several tools and features that Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia, is considering for implementation to discourage informational vandalism by allowing users to rate or challenge a paragraph, article, or even contributor. Further options may include delayed posting of an article, and WikiScanner which would reveal the author of an edit. (“You can” 23 pars).

Any essay or project that requires research and citation would not likely meet expectations if it had only a single source of information. Thus, it is equally unlikely that Wikipedia would ever stand alone on the “works cited” page of a 4.0 essay, and any student considering it acceptable would probably not do well. If there is to be a Wikipedia “problem” of any sorts in a college level essay, then the error would not lie in Wikipedia but within the student.

Perhaps institutions should encourage teachers and students alike to critically review Wikipedia’s contents correct inaccuracies when they are found, as Mat Hardy asks of his fellow journalists in his article entitled “Wiki Goes To War”(17-19), further stating “it would seem that both academics and media professionals alike need to care about Wikipedia and its content, lest they risk dismissing the means through which a considerable portion of the web-connected world gains its information” (Hardy, 17). After all, a compendium of collective public knowledge is best when we all contribute to the best of our abilities. When a new way to learn, or a better way to study comes along, we often embrace it. When new sources of knowledge or research arise, such as libraries and databases, we use them. So when something like Wikipedia arrives on the scene, combining convenience, reliability, and flexibility in a manner that is both fun and educational, it would be foolish to disregard it.

Works Cited

Achterman, Doug. "Beyond Wikipedia." Teacher Librarian 34.2 (2006): 20 pars. General OneFile. Gale. Lansing Community Coll. Lib., MI 29 Oct. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com>.

Giles, Jim. "You can put your trust in Wikipedia 2.0: Wikipedia wants to be seen as more reliable, but will the changes it is planning deter genuine contributors?” New Scientist Sept. 2007: 23 Pars. Academic Onefile. Gale. Lansing Community Coll. Lib., MI 21 Nov. 2007. <http://find.galegroup.com>.

Hardy, Mat. “Wiki Goes To War.” Australian Quarterly (July 2007): 17-22. General OneFile. Gale. Lansing Community Coll. Lib., MI 21 Nov. 2007. <http://find.galegroup.com>.

Harris, Mark. "Wikis, Lies, and Video Clips ... " Community College Enterprise 13.1 (2007): 7 pars. Academic OneFile. Gale. Lansing Community Coll. Lib., MI 29 Oct. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com >.

Orr, Bill. “Don't Laugh: Odds Are, There Will Be a Wiki in Your Bank's Future.” ABA Banking Journal 99.5 (2007): 15 pars. General OneFile. Gale. Lansing Community Col. Lib., MI 29 Oct. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com>.

Pappas, Theodore, et al. Encyclopedia Britannica: Propedia. 15^th Ed. 2005. 524-745

"Wikipedia." Wikipedia.org. 2007.14 Nov 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=171382068>.

"Wikis. " Library Technology Reports 42.4 (2006): 20 pars. General OneFile. Gale. Lansing Community Coll. Lib., MI 29 Oct. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com>.