WIKIPEDIA FOR
JOURNALISTS & BLOGGERS
A guide to the world’s largest encyclopedia.

HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA
One notion: Wikipedia should be the first place you look, but
never the last.
As a collaboratively-written secondary source that cites the
work of journalists (among other things), it’s risky and often
inappropriate to cite Wikipedia as source.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
“Wikipedia will give you the questions you should ask,
not the answers.”

THE TRUTHINESS FACTOR
Should you be using it at all?

REACTION
...or overreaction
“We have a written rule inside
the company that forbids any
journalist using Wikipedia.”
Pierre Lesourd,
London Bureau Chief
of the AFP

REALITY
• Journalists and bloggers use Wikipedia every day.
• Hundreds of articles every year cite it as a source, including those from 50 of the
top 100 newspapers in America ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source]]).

THE PROBLEM
Journalists and bloggers regularly use a resource that is uneven
in quality, but one that they are not fully equipped to assess.
• Danger to readers in inaccurate information.
• Danger to news organizations in lost credibility.
• Danger to content producers in professional repercussions.

THE SOLUTION
Provide journalists and bloggers with the tools to more easily
evaluate the contents of Wikipedia, just as they would any
traditional source.

FINDING WHAT YOU WANT
...out of 2.8 million articles.

SEARCHING

BROWSING

MORE THAN JUST ARTICLES
• Overviews of Wikipedia • Featured content
• Portals • Spoken articles
• Lists • Timelines
• Glossaries
• Alphabetical indices
• Categorical indices

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Manned 24/7 by Wikipedians
Shortcut [[WP:RD]]

EVALUATING CONTENT

EVALUATING CONTENT
Understand the structure

EVALUATING CONTENT
Understand the structure
Determine stability

EVALUATING CONTENT
Understand the structure
Determine stability
Gauge quality

EVALUATING CONTENT
Understand the structure
Determine stability
Gauge quality
Find additional resources

EVALUATING CONTENT
Understand the structure
Determine stability
Gauge quality
Find additional resources
Acquire context from the community

1. UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE
An honest analysis of Wikipedia cannot
divorce the content from the software
and the community.

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view.

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia is free content.

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia is free content.
Wikipedia has a code of conduct.

THE FIVE PILLARS
[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia is free content.
Wikipedia has a code of conduct.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

NAMESPACES
About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of
Wikipedia’s content.

NAMESPACES
About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of
Wikipedia’s content.
• Main (articles)

NAMESPACES
About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of
Wikipedia’s content.
• Main (articles)
• Wikipedia (project)

NAMESPACES
About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of
Wikipedia’s content.
• Main (articles)
• Wikipedia (project)
• User

NAMESPACES
About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of
Wikipedia’s content.
• Main (articles)
• Wikipedia (project)
• User
• Talk (discussion)

2. DETERMINE STABILITY
Before you dive in, find out what level
of flux the content is currently in.
Articles should always be checked for
vandalism, and those enduring edit
wars should be treated with even
greater skepticism.

HISTORY
• Nota namespace, but a tool
accompanying every page
• Often overwhelming to look at, but
critical for evaluation of articles

FILTERING

3. GAUGE QUALITY

3. GAUGE QUALITY
• Bad news: Wikipedia is wildly irregular.

3. GAUGE QUALITY
• Bad news: Wikipedia is wildly irregular.
• Good news: Wikipedia “seems to hold more consistent and constant standards
across the board”

DETAILED STANDARDS

HALLMARKS OF QUALITY

RED FLAGS

4. FIND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
• Wiki links
• References/Footnotes/Sources
• External links
• See also
• Interwiki links

5. ACQUIRE CONTEXT
“Like journalism, Wikipedia offers a first draft of history, but
unlike journalism’s draft, that history is subject to continuous
revision.” (Roy Rosenzweig)

CONTEXTUAL SIGNALS

CONFLICT IS YOUR FRIEND
Pay close attention to the man
behind the curtain.

THANK YOU