Being a student involves
doing lots of research and essay writing.
You will undoubtedly encounter Wikipedia many times when you search for
information online. Whilst Wikipedia is
a good idea in theory, in reality it is never a good idea to use it as your
chief source of information. The main
reason for this is that information uploaded to Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, regardless of whether they have knowledge
of the subject or not. Whilst some of the content is very good, it is
generally frowned upon in academic writing to use it as a source in your
assignments.
Peter Denning et al outline some of the reasons you should approach Wikipedia with caution:
Accuracy: You cannot be sure which information
is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you
get it for free, you've paid too much.
Motives: You cannot know the motives of the
contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial
opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals
Uncertain
Expertise: Some
contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumours, hearsay,
or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an
article's contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by
pseudonyms, making it hard to check credentials and sources.
Volatility: Contributions and corrections may be
negated by future contributors. One of the co-authors of this column found it
disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia
article about himself and negate the others' opinions. Volatility creates a
conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you
read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other
improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the
article you saw)?
Coverage: Voluntary contributions largely
represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors.
They are not part of a careful plan to organise human knowledge. Topics that
interest the young and Internet-savvy are well-covered, while events that
happened ``before the Web'' may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at
all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge.
Sources: Many articles do not cite independent
sources. Few articles contain citations to works not digitised and stored in
the open Internet.
Here some good sources that explains this further:
Some good alternatives to Wikipedia are
listed here:
It is not fair to say that all the content on Wikipedia is not of
an academic standard. Rather you should approach it with caution and, like
with every source of information, critically evaluate what it says before
accepting what it tells you. Check the bibliographic references at the bottom
of the page to see where the article is sourcing its information. Verify what
you found out on Wikipedia by consulting other sources – books, journals,
newspapers etc.