Thursday 22 March 2012

Researcher Beware! The pro's and con's of using Wikipedia in academic research


It’s no secret that Wikipedia not only doubles as the online encyclopaedia of today, but also as the best study buddy an undergrad can find. We’ve all had those moments of despair; a due date is looming, the paper isn’t even started and more times than not, a topic hasn’t even been chosen yet. So what is a sleep-deprived stressed-out student to do? Well, for most students who are already “plugged in”, the best help is just a click away. In today’s technological world, there is an infinite supply of information on an endless array of topics available to anyone and everyone who has access to a computer. Gone are the days of dusting off the old book shelf only to come up empty handed on the topic of your choice. Instead, we search Wikipedia for everything from the role of insulin to how to hard boil an egg. Wikipedia allows us to wow our friends with our knowledge, easily settle an argument and let’s us look up how to do anything without having to ask a real person for help. Wikipedia doesn’t judge you, its only goal is to help teach you something, no matter how mundane or simple it may seem.

But what exactly does this mean for the academic world? Those who recognize not only the strengths but also the limitations of Wikipedia will be most likely to benefit from this online reservoir of information. Wikipedia is a valuable tool for those budding researchers who are searching for a broad overview of a topic and are able to use it as a jumping off point. The information provided is not intended to provide an in-depth analysis of the minute details of a subject, but rather a broad overview instead.   What is most important to a research project is not so much the information that is posted on the topic, but rather the direction that a researcher can glean from the site. When reviewing a topic on Wikipedia there are three key sections to pay attention to:  References, further reading and external links. These are the places where a researcher can find more reliable sources of the author’s information as well as more useful books, articles and links to other websites on the topic.  These sections can help direct one’s research and allow someone to greatly expand on their chosen topic.

Where Wikipedia falls painfully short is on the quality and reliability of its information. And Wikipedia makes absolutely no apologies for this. Even on its disclaimer site, it clearly states “WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”. In other words, proceed with caution. Despite the fact that extremely knowledgeable and academic people are sharing their information on Wikipedia, we must remember that among those scholars are a multitude of people who are posting on Wikipedia without any credentials whatsoever. The sites are regularly screened and monitored by Wikipedia and other authors but a researcher should never take the information posted as fact without verifying it from numerous other reputable sources. The key to successfully using Wikipedia for good and not evil is in the art of critical evaluation.

Photo by Erika Brown - screen shot of edited Wikipedia stub article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_toxicity
March 22, 2012
Until recently I was unsure of the pro's and con's of using Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. I was aware that it is not the most reputable source available as most professors have frowned upon accepting Wikipedia as a primary source of information. I also knew that the information presented was a compilation of numerous different authors around the world. The key piece in the puzzle that I was missing was the fact that there is absolutely no restriction as to who may or may not contribute to the information. There are no credentials, expertise or education required to become an author on Wikipedia, the only thing you need is a computer. Today I was able to edit and contribute to a Wikipedia article about protein toxicity. I was always under the impression that these pages were written by experts in the specific topic, and not just your regular university student.  JenV expands on this concept in her reflective blog about the Wikipedia assignment. She offers insight into the problems that arise when there are no restrictions in place to screen contributors and the lack of accountability that results.  Wikipedia does not concern itself with the validity of its information or accountability of its authors as much as we may hope. Therefore, the onus is on us, the readers, to dissect the information that is being served to us and critically evaluate it as such.