1. Wi-can trust Wikipedia | The Concordian http://theconcordian.com/2012/01/10/wi-can-trust-wikipedia/
Wi-can trust Wikipedia
Don't disparage the online encyclopedia just yet
By Myles Dolphin
Opinion Editor
January 10th, 2012
Ever since Wikipedia’s inception in 2001, professors
and academics alike have often doubted the
accuracy of its numerous entries. Concordia
communication studies librarian Sonia Poulin is part
of that camp: “Wikipedia is not an academic source,
nor an authoritative source (despite having
references), and there is no organized editorial or
academic oversight,” she said. “An article may
have references, but present the information in a
biased, unscientific way.” Like anything else
though, it’s misguided to criticize something you
don’t truly understand the inner workings of.
Some people completely discredit things without truly understanding how they’re built. For
example, a professor of mine just last week told my class not to “watch CNN because it’s not
real news.” The problem lies with people telling me where I can and cannot get information.
After five years at university and a lot more at the university of life, I’m confident that I’ve been
given the right tools to sniff out information that isn’t fit to print. They tell us we have to use
reliable sources, but what exactly is a reliable source these days? Besides peer-reviewed
journals, it’s really hard to say.
I would classify Harper’s, Rolling Stone and New Republic as highly reputable publications, but
do you remember Stephen Glass? In 1998 he was fired after it was revealed he fabricated
parts of dozens of stories for those magazines, all dealing with very important topics. Today,
media outlets are duped by Twitter hoaxes all the time and have to admit they jumped the gun
in an embarrassing fashion. The professor who told us to stay away from CNN surely knows
that mainstream media is also vulnerable to inaccuracies.
Just how accurate is Wikipedia exactly? In 2005, a single-blind study published in the journal
Nature, which compared 42 random scientific articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia
Britannica, concluded that the average Wikipedia article contained four errors, as opposed to
three in the average Britannica article.
So besides being pretty accurate, how is Wikipedia built and is it truly disorganized with no
academic oversight? The answer is no, it’s a lot more organized that you may think. There are
currently 1,507 administrators (744 active) who “protect, delete and restore pages, move pages
over redirects, hide and delete page revisions, edit protected pages, and block other
editors.” They are chosen by way of a rigorous peer selection process and watch over the
changes made by more than 16 million accounts (300,000 of which have made more than 10
edits). They are helped by a variety of “software assisted systems and automated
programs,” one of which is called WikiScanner, to watch for problematic edits and editors.
WikiScanner is a tool developed by the California Institute of Technology which “matches
anonymous IP edits in the encyclopedia with an extensive database of addresses.” It has
identified dubious edits made to entries by the CIA, Diebold Inc., the Australian government
and others over the years.
“You can edit whatever you want in Wikipedia!,” many claim. Anyone who thinks this has clearly
never tried editing anything on the site. This is the litmus test for someone who doesn’t
understand how Wikipedia works. Editors are notified when the slightest changes are made to
entries, and many mistakes are fixed almost instantly. In fact, “a 2007 peer-reviewed study
stated that 42% of damage (i.e. vandalism) is repaired almost immediately.”
In 2009, continued vandalism prompted Wikipedia to implement a new feature called “Flagged
Revisions.” Originally used as a pilot project on the German version of Wikipedia, users are
required to be authenticated before being able to edit, and need to provide references. For
certain entries, the changes “must be verified by an experienced volunteer before publication,”
according to an article in PC World. Entries are placed in a holding queue until they are
approved by someone Wikipedia considers a “trusted editor.” Furthermore, “systems
administrators can block access to the site by certain users who have repeatedly been
vandalizing entries.” Clearly, many measures are put into place to prevent vandalism and
erroneous information from being posted.
That doesn’t mean, by any stretch, that Wikipedia entries are hermetically sealed and
invulnerable to inaccuracies, because they aren’t. Out of more than 3.8 million English entries
there will be mistakes. But it’s unfair to label it as a specious source for information.
With a growing number of newspapers, books and even libraries migrating to the web, why
should we stay away from highly-structured, communal knowledge building websites such as
1 of 2 1/25/12 10:27 AM

2. Wi-can trust Wikipedia | The Concordian http://theconcordian.com/2012/01/10/wi-can-trust-wikipedia/
With a growing number of newspapers, books and even libraries migrating to the web, why
should we stay away from highly-structured, communal knowledge building websites such as
Wikipedia? Everyone will agree that it’s a great tool; with more than 20 million articles in
280-some languages, it’s hard to argue against that statement. It can be highly useful for
academic purposes, but provided that students have been taught the necessary critical thinking
skills that will allow them to mine adequate and accurate information. That means checking
references to see how trustworthy they are and remaining skeptical of single source entries.
Hyperlinking is where Wikipedia is truly powerful; it provides a fantastic springboard for
research. “It can be a very valuable first source – but I repeat – only as a first source. Chances
are, if the article is solid, you’ll be able to find a second or even a third source corroborating the
info,” says Alex Panetta, news editor for the Canadian Press in Montreal. Concordia
journalism professor Leo Gervais agrees. “We should teach and encourage the students to use
other sources and show their benefits, but to dismiss Wikipedia out of hand would be folly in
my view.”
Ultimately, universities strive to prepare their students for the ‘real’ world by teaching them to filter, analyze, evaluate
and compile information properly. The information itself is quasi-irrelevant. Nowadays, professors need to re-evaluate
their approaches to defining “reliable sources” and put more trust in their students. Research has always been about
getting various sources on a topic and Wikipedia is a great place to start, so don’t be so quick to dismiss it; it may be
free, but it’s a labor of love for thousands of well-informed people who mean well.
2 of 2 1/25/12 10:27 AM