Wikipedia.com Review

All I could say was "Good grief!" when my son gave me a paper that started off, "According to Wikipedia . . ."

"Do you want to fail this class," I asked him.

"Well, no," he said.

I had to explain why Wikipedia is not considered a solid source in academic circles.

It's not that you can't find great information on Wikipedia. A lot of experts and fans do pop on and add to the knowledge base. I think that's great. So, I'm not knocking Wikipedia. It can be quite useful.

I often will click on Wikipedia as I begin to research a topic. Wikipedia often has good overviews as well as nice reference clicks. I consider it a fine launching pad.

The problem with Wikipedia is also why it's so great. Anyone can click in and add. If most cases, this includes people who are passionate about any given topic and who care about making sure you get the best information. In other cases, though, you've got some radical with an agenda who puts a slant on a topic. Or, you get someone joking around and putting up downright silly stuff.

Members do police the site. If someone puts up something stupid, it's usually corrected and pretty fast by passionate members. But, you may click in during those few hours, minutes or seconds when there's something nutty posted up.

I've seen a number of odd notes at Wikipedia. I always seem to forget the exact examples. That makes it hard to explain my concerns to my students.

Well, my son caught a REALLY GOOD ONE this week. He was looking up defintions for science class. That sounds very straightforward. Who games on science?

Well, you can click on the photo link. Be warned that you'll see a naughty word. It's not an over-the-top word, or I'd not share this. But, it's certainly a naughty and certainly not appropriate when defining the science term.

I could just imagine some kid using copy and paste and turning this in for a definition. It was only up for seconds, so the teacher could go check and not see what I've pasted here from a photograph off the computer screen. He or she would think the student was being a jerk when, in fact, they really did see this - though briefly. Who knows? Some kid might think this is the definition. Science is mysterious to many.

Feel free to visit Wikipedia. Get some background. Get some ideas. Get some links to sites where experts monitor what goes up.

But, don't use Wikipedia as your back up for your ideas in your papers. You might happen on something like I've posted, and you'll look like an idiot if you use and site it. Or you may get good information. Then, your teacher clicks in and sees something like I've posted. Even if he or she is not real familiar with Wikipedia, he or she will not be impressed.

A community vault of information is great and can be valuable. I use it. But, I don't count on it. It changes from second to second. I'd never chance visiting during that second when it's bad information, and most other serious researchers would tell you the same.

Wikipedia may be popular, but it's not respected. And, it won't be as long as it doesn't have any real checks and balances. Have fun. Get leads. But, do not count on a community site to back up your work. If you do, you may end up looking like the word inserted in the above photographed page at Wikipedia.