Featured Article

Wikipedia: Can we trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit?

Text Box: “That which gives Wikipedia its weakness also gives it its strength – the ability for any expert, or any fool, to change it.” -- Andrew Kantor USA Today Wikipedia, an online, user-compiled encyclopedia, has been a controversial entity since its inception in 2001. Wikipedia creators anticipated that the sheer size of its usership would harvest experts to contribute to its articles, and back-and-forth debates and constant edits and contributions to its entries would eventually produce deeply reviewed and reliable articles.

Some praises of Wikipedia include that it is always available, convenient and current. Additionally, Wikipedia’s staff is comprised of a large number of moderators and editors whose job it is to ensure the accuracy of each entry.

While these staff members might eventually get to each and every article, one criticism is that there are simply too many entries and changes to those entries on a daily basis for them to review in a timely manner. Tens of thousands of changes are made each day to the approximately 1.7 million entries. Mistakes or deliberate falsehoods could stay on the site for days or weeks before they are found and corrected.

Does the Library of Congress know something we don’t?
Although people argue that Wikipedia may not be a reliable reference source, the Library of Congress is including Wikipedia in its reference guides (such as its General Guide to Paper Money on its Business Reference Services site) and as a reference for authority records.

The Library of Congress responded to concerns from a cataloging committee about the use of Wikipedia by saying that Wikipedia is a good reference source because it has not one but many authors. Those who create authority records – both LC catalogers and those participants in other libraries – are trained to check multiple reference sources, not just one.

When LC constructs authority records for names and subjects, it often includes a tag that cites the source data found. LC is using Wikipedia and other print and online sources to establish headings as authoritative. The Library of Congress’ recently modified record for the “International Workingmen’s Association” cites Wikipedia, as well as Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Web site www.marxists.org. A subject authority record for “Generation Y” cites Wikipedia, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta, and a book called “Parenting the Millennial Generation.”

Wikiality invades America

In an episode of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” last year, Stephen Colbert, political satirist and host of the show, popularized the word “Wikiality,” defined as “reality as determined by the majority vote.”

During that episode, Colbert encouraged his viewers to edit the Wikipedia article for “elephant” to say that the population of the African elephant – a protected animal – had tripled in the past six months. Colbert fans flooded Wikipedia, crashing the site’s server and causing Wikipedia to restrict editing privileges by the next day on pages relating to “elephants” and "The Colbert Report." 

Colbert headshot

Text Box: “You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true…We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. What we’re doing is bringing democracy to knowledge.” -- Stephen Colbert Colbert Report Shortly after Colbert’s incident, Scott Douglas, a librarian and writer, encouraged people via his regular article on McSweeney’s Internet Tendency to invent his life. “Tell the truth, tell a half-truth, tell what you think might be truth ... just make me look good,” he wrote in his October 2006 article.

Douglas’ readers complied. His Wikipedia article had him dating a variety of celebrities (including Dustin Diamond, best known for portraying Screech on “Saved by the Bell”) and climbing Mt. Everest without equipment, and sang his praises as the best Formula 1 driver in history.

About one week after Douglas’ request appeared on McSweeney’s site, Wikipedia officials blocked his article from being edited, and eventually removed it completely, declaring it “digital vandalism” (although most of the original article can be viewed on www.uncyclopedia.org, a Wikipedia parody site). According to Douglas, Wikipedia now blocks any attempt to create a new article about him.

In both of these examples, the notoriety of the situations allowed Wikipedia moderators to quickly find out about and alter or delete the intentional falsehoods. However, in other situations, “vandalized” articles remain on the site for days, weeks, or even months before an editor or a user realizes the error. Although it eventually is removed or fixed, it’s possible that many people have already read it, believed it, or even cited it on another Web site or in a report.

Earlier this year, pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued a Miami law firm, claiming that false, derogatory information published in August 2006 in Zoeller’s Wikipedia article had been posted from a computer with an Internet address assigned to the law firm. The article wrongly stated that Zoeller had abused drugs, alcohol and his family. The incorrect information was removed eventually, but not before it had been picked up by several other Web sites.

Wikipedia in colleges
Controversy is taking form in the academic world as well. Some professors or entire colleges are starting to ban students from citing Wikipedia as a source in papers and exams because of its inaccuracies; others are using the site’s collaborative nature as a learning opportunity for their students.

In February, Neil Waters, a Japanese history professor at Middlebury College in Vermont, learned first-hand how Wikipedia’s inaccuracies could steer his students wrong. On an exam, six of his students incorrectly stated that the Jesuits supported the Shimabara Rebellion in Japan in the 17th century. Because all six students’ answers were not only incorrect, but also identical and quite obscure, Waters knew something strange was going on. After questioning the students, Waters ascertained that all six of them had gotten their information from Wikipedia while studying for their exam.
Text Box: “Students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.” -- Jimmy Wales Co-founder of Wikipedia
Students at Middlebury had been citing Wikipedia for more than a year, but this was the last straw. The Middlebury history department banned Wikipedia as a citation source in all reports and exams.

Meanwhile, professors at the University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio plan to have students this spring edit Wikipedia articles on topics being taught in courses on the Middle East and ancient Rome. Students who have completed similar assignments at other universities said that creating an encyclopedia entry helped them become better writers and gave them the opportunity to get guidance and advice from experts who improved their work and, in some cases, whom they were able to later interview.

Should librarians get involved?
Some librarians believe that they and their fellow librarians should contribute to the development of Wikipedia by reviewing and editing articles. Wikipedia’s creators’ original intent was to build an encyclopedia based on user knowledge; who better to contribute to such a site than people with access to accurate, credible information?

Some people see Wikipedia as an erroneous site of which to be wary; others see it as a groundbreaking resource that should be embraced and used as a learning tool. One concept that threads through both sides of the controversy is that, when used correctly, Wikipedia is a handy tool that can be used as a starting point on which to base further research.