Recent Posts
Mentorship October 4, 2016
Have you ever cited The National Enquirer in an essay about climate change? If you’re the kind of woman who received grades higher than a C, then the answer to that question is most likely, ‘No.’
Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, teachers have been reminding students that you need at least three different sources referenced in your papers. And no, Wikipedia should not be one of them. Most students have grown up knowing that referencing Wikipedia is like asking for a bad grade. But if this is the case, why is it that over 10 billion pages alone are visited each month in the English version of Wikipedia?
Some pages – like those on Pokémon – are highly detailed and incredibly accurate. They contain a collection of facts provided by a lot of knowledgeable people, facts that would take you hours to Google on your own. But one of the effects of living in a pluralistic society is that every subject can be viewed in multiple ways – and typically, Wikipedia only allows for one.
A 2011 study by the University of Oxford found that 84 percent of the articles with a tagged location originated from Europe or North America. Antarctica, a nearly inhospitable continent that’s only ever housed tourists and scientists, has more Wikipedia entries than any African or South American country.
In the same way, a joint study by the University at Buffalo in New York and the University of Connecticut found that controversial scientific topics like evolution, global warming and acid rain are edited much more frequently than less politically charged topics like continental drift, general relativity, the Standard Model and heliocentrism.
According to Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia’s editors follow the “biases of Internet culture, inclining to being young, male, English-speaking, educated, technologically aware, and wealthy enough to spare time for editing.” Wikipedia’s goals for neutrality are hindered by systematic bias that results in several groups’ underrepresentation, the skewing of information and a biased perspective. In other words, digital diversity isn’t easy!
This isn’t likely to change any time soon, especially since those willing to spend hours a day fact-checking sources are turning their energies elsewhere. According to MIT Technology Review, “The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking.” A decade ago, more than 51,000 editors actively contributed to Wikipedia pages. Since then, this number has shrunk to less than 30,000.
According to a study by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Washington, this decline should prompt the online encyclopedia to change its motto from “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.”
Part of the reason citing is necessary is so others can find the information used if they search for it themselves. With fewer actively-contributing editors making sure every statement of “fact” is based on proven research, the information you receive from Wikipedia is far less reliable. It’s never a good idea to assume what you read on Wikipedia is concrete truth, especially considering that what you read on a Wikipedia page could change the very next moment when someone with a different perspective makes an edit.
Instead of using Wikipedia as a source, check out the websites cited in the footnotes. Chances are, the information is likely more accurate and your teacher won’t fail you outright. It’s a win-win. Just take an extra second to click on or Google the link – it could make all the difference between an A and a D.
