LibraryEvaluating Websites
Wikipedia
You may have had a professor or two tell you that you should not use Wikipedia, or that citing Wikipedia would not be allowed. But if you use the Web at all, you've probably used Wikipedia and found it helpful. If you use search engines, it is nearly impossible to avoid--it is the first result, or nearly the first, in just about every search you do.
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia that has ever existed, and is constantly growing. It contains a large amount of reliable information and is among the best freely accessible reference tools available. The secret to Wikipedia's success is its openness: anyone can edit it, at any time (unless they've specifically been banned from doing so). People interested in a topic can contribute knowledge toward an article, which gets updated immediately.
This openness, however, has a few consequences. For one, it is difficult to gauge the authority of the authors of any particular articles, partly because there are so many of them, and partly because many of them are anonymous (or pseudonymous—meaning they have an identity within Wikipedia, but determining their credentials on a particular topic would be difficult or impossible.
Is it a high-quality source?
With so much activity happening all the time, there's little consistency in the quality of articles (as Wikipedia itself notes). The quality of any particular article will depend upon who has taken an interest in the article. Some articles are excellent; others seem randomly focused on particular issues, simply because the people who have edited the article are interested in those things. Coverage of controversial topics may lack depth because of battles amongst the various editors who are on different sides of an issue. While all information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be cited, many articles have insufficient citations or none at all. (As of January 2009, this was true of the Sacramento City College article. Somebody help!) This question of quality control is the primary reason why professors often react negatively toward it.
Is it an accurate resource?
The accuracy of the information in Wikipedia is also an important concern. There have been many cases of false information appearing in Wikipedia articles. On the whole, it may be considered a fairly accurate resource; one study conducted in 2005 by the journal Nature found that it was about as reliable as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet, as with quality, the reliability of any given article depends very much upon which people have committed themselves to developing and maintaining it.
What about scope and originality?
Another reason Wikipedia is often out of favor with professors is that, as a general rule, encyclopedias are not great materials to cite in college-level work. Encyclopedias attempt to collect a great deal of knowledge on a particular topic that was developed elsewhere. Wikipedia takes this matter seriously, and as a matter of policy Wikipedia is not supposed to contain any original material. Usually, professors are looking for you to use more original sources that have developed a particular perspective, which you then synthesize in your paper.
How should you use Wikipedia?
But, if you approach it with a knowledge of its limitations, you can use Wikipedia productively. Since all the information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be cited, if you read something interesting in an article, you can go to the References section, find the source, and follow up on it there (you can see an example of the References section by clicking on the image to the right). Be sure, however, to always evaluate the source! Being cited in a Wikipedia article is no guarantee of a site's quality. Also have a look at the External Links section to find relevant websites (but again, do not automatically assume these sites are good!).
One of the most fascinating things you can do with a Wikipedia article is to look at the discussion (Talk) page, where people editing the article discuss changes (click the image on the left for an example). This can be a great way to get an idea of what is controversial about a topic. But again, it's just talk—you'll need to find more reliable sources in order to use it in a paper.
Wikipedia alternatives?
There have been several efforts to produce a more scholarly or authoritative alternative to Wikipedia, including Scholarpedia, Citizendium, and Google Knol. You may find good information in these sources, but their articles are not uniformly high in quality, and, being general encyclopedias, they are unsuitable for citing in most college-level work. Use them the same way you use Wikipedia: to get ideas for further research.
