A teaching library with an outstanding student-centered information literacy program
| Future Students | Current Students | Faculty & Staff | Alumni | Visitors | Help / Search | OAKLAND UNIVERSITY |
| About OU | Academics | Research | Arts | Athletics | Library | IT | Administration | Jobs | News |
Kresge Library >
Tutorials > Wikipedia & Research
Wikipedia & Research
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia.
Any internet user can:
- Sign up for an account.
- Write entries on any topic.
- Edit entries on any topic.
What you might not know:
- The true identity of Wikipedia authors and editors.
- The author's or editor's expertise level.
- The accuracy of the entry.
Should I use Wikipedia for my paper?
No, you probably should not use the free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia meets none of the five indicators for assessing information quality on the web:
- Authority
- There's no way to verify a Wikipedia entry's author; or whether an entry's editor is an authority on the topic.
- For example, the Wikipedia entry on adult stem cells does not have the same authority as:
- A book: Klimanskaya, I., & Lanza, R., eds. (2006). Adult stem cells. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press or,
- A scholarly article: Adult stem cells: capturing youth from a bulge? So, P-L. & Epstein, E. H. Jr. (2004). Trends in Biotechnology, 22(10), 493-496.
- Accuracy
- There is no guarantee that information in the Wikipedia is accurate.
- For example:
- During the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial race, Wikipedia members frequently edited the entries of Governor Jennifer Granholm and her opponent, Dick DeVos. The edits were often inaccurate and only verified when a reporter called the candidates (Markowitz, A. (2006). Is Wikipedia worthy of trust at ballot box?).
- During the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial race, Wikipedia members frequently edited the entries of Governor Jennifer Granholm and her opponent, Dick DeVos. The edits were often inaccurate and only verified when a reporter called the candidates (Markowitz, A. (2006). Is Wikipedia worthy of trust at ballot box?).
- Objectivity
- Wikipedia entries may be biased.
- For example:
- The Dick Devos entry contains the following statement: "the neutrality of this entry is disputed." This means that the content of the entry may be biased, and is not an objective look at Devos' life and career.
- Currency
- Even though entries are often updated minutes after related events occur, issues of objectivity and authority arise.
- For example:
- Results were added to the Governor Jennifer Granholm entry for the gubernatorial race on November 9, 2006- the same night as the election. But in the 'talk' section, where users can expression their opinions on entries, there was discussion about election results. While entries may be updated immediately after events occur, they can be tweaked, changed, and discussed at will.
- Coverage
- Just because an entry on Wikipedia exists, it does not necessarily cover every aspect of a topic.
- For example:
- The entry on nuclear energy is very short. In contrast, a keyword search for (nuclear and energy) in Voyager, returns 2,222 entries. One can assume the Wikipedia entry is extensively lacking in coverage.
So is the Wikipedia ever a useful source?
Yes: for popular culture information, such as entires for television shows, movies, or music.
Yes: for an overview of any one of a variety of topics.
- For example:
- You have to write a paper on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you know nothing about it.
- Read the Wikipedia entry on the topic and then go to other, more authoritative materials, such as
- CIA documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis or
- October missiles and November elections: the Cuban Missile Crisis and american politics, 1962. Paterson, T.G., Brophy, W.J. (1986). The Journal of American History, 73(1), 87-119.
- Read the Wikipedia entry on the topic and then go to other, more authoritative materials, such as
- You have to write a paper on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you know nothing about it.
Do not use information from Wikipedia in your paper. Verify everything you read on Wikipedia in other authoritative sources, and cite that information in your assignments.
What should I use instead of Wikipedia?
- Materials found in Kresge Library's Voyager library catalog.
- Articles from Kresge Library's databases.
- Articles from Kresge Library's e-journals.
- Authoritative encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana.
Happy Researching!
Further Reading:
- Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility. First Monday, 11(11). Retrieved March 5, 2007.
- Eiffert, R. (2006). Wikipedia, the review: how the online behemoth compares to standard reference works. School Library Journal, 52(3), 82-83. Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
- Kirschner, A. (2006). Adventures in the land of Wikipedia. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(13). Retrieved March 5, 2007.
- Read, B. (2006). Can Wikipedia ever make the grade? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(10). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
- Read, B. (2006). Building an encyclopedia, with or without scholars. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(10). Retrieved March 5, 2007.
- Rosenzweig, R. (2006). Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. The Journal of American History, 93(1). Retrieved March 5, 2007.
- Schiff, Stacy. (2006). Know it all: can Wikipedia conquer expertise? The New Yorker, 82(21), 36. Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
- Wolpe, D. (2006). Ethical dilemmas: the sticky wicket of Wikipedia. Campaigns & Elections, 27(6), 66-67. Retrieved March 5, 2007.
