Wikipedia
Caulfield and Wineburg argue that Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for research despite its history of errors. They emphasize its broad use and the value of following an article’s citations to assess the underlying evidence.
THE IDEA
Wikipedia
Your middle school teacher threatened to give you an F if you cited it. A menacing reminder hung in the computer lab: a thick black line slashing the word in two. Even now, you can find blanket dismissals bellowing from college websites: Wikipedia “isn’t a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor.”
In its early days, Wikipedia had no shortage of problems. Errors propagated like fruit flies. People used the site to spoof their friends and exact revenge on their enemies. The site’s flaws were legendary, sometimes scandalous. The authors describe a 2006 article that accused John Seigenthaler, an assistant to Robert Kennedy in the 1960s, of having a hand in Kennedy’s assassination. The false charge stayed on the site for 132 days before it was finally removed. But not before Seigenthaler denounced Wikipedia in the pages of USA Today as a site run by “volunteer vandals.” The head of the American Library Association compared professors who let students use Wikipedia to nutritionists who prescribe a diet of Big Macs.
Scandals like John Seigenthaler’s gave Wikipedia a black eye. They also prompted the site to clean up its act. The authors argue that Wikipedia had changed substantially by the time of their account. The world’s biggest and deepest-pocketed tech companies shamelessly grab content from the site. Google poaches on Wikipedia to populate its knowledge panels. Ask Amazon’s Alexa or Apple’s Siri a question, and you’re likely to get an answer that begins, “According to Wikipedia.” Chances are, your doctor consults the site too. A 2015 study found that Wikipedia was the single leading source of medical information for 50 to 70 percent of physicians. And among medical students, the percentage was even higher: 94 percent consulted the site. Each month, an estimated one billion people across the globe spend the equivalent of sixty thousand years on the site (that’s no typo). At the time of their account, the authors described Wikipedia as the fifth-most visited website on the internet and the only nonprofit among the top ten. Still, many people—not just middle school teachers—have misgivings about the site.
When to use it
Starting a research project by reading a Wikipedia article to gain an overview and then diving into the cited sources.
Quickly checking facts, dates, or definitions by consulting a Wikipedia entry and verifying with sub-references.
Evaluating the reliability of a Wikipedia article by examining its edit history, talk page, and citation quality.
Using Wikipedia as a launchpad for finding authoritative sources on a topic, especially in academic or professional contexts.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
John Seigenthaler Assassination Hoax
In the authors’ account, a 2006 Wikipedia article falsely accused John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, of involvement in the Kennedy assassination. The error persisted for 132 days before removal, highlighting early reliability issues.
Medical Professionals Use Wikipedia
A 2015 study found that 50-70% of physicians and 94% of medical students consult Wikipedia for medical information, illustrating professional use of the site, without establishing the accuracy of any particular article.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How can you use Wikipedia as a starting point for research while still verifying information from primary sources?
What criteria should you use to judge the credibility of a specific Wikipedia article?
What safeguards would you look for in a Wikipedia article before relying on it?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Verified How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (Mike Caulfield, Sam Wineburg)