Wikipedia... again !

The debate continues about the merits of Wikipedia in an academic context.

In his recent article Wikipedia and the New Curriculum, David Parry provides an argument in favour of embracing Wikipedia as the marquee example of a new form of 'informational format'. These formats are characterised by being participative and the knowledge in them is the result of collaborative authorship.

Far from discouraging access to these new media formats Parry argues that universities need to be teaching students to understand how these formats work and training them to participate in the debates through which knowledge is now being created.

Parry rightly points out that, unlike a traditional print encyclopedia, information sources like Wikipedia reveal the process of their creation (through the discussion and history pages that accompany an article). This transparency is entirely consistent with the process of academic scholarship in which the demonstration of the way knowledge is created is vital for the credibility of the research.

To get a sense of the polarising and polarised nature of the Wikipedia debate follow the comments thread at the end of the article.

(David Parry is an assistant professor of Emerging Media and Communications at the University of Texas at Dallas).

To Wikipedia or not Wikipedia ?

Most web users will be very familiar with the free encyclopedia Wikipedia . This vast source of information is very different from a traditional encyclopedia and should be used with caution.

Wikipedia is edited by the users of the encyclopedia rather than paid authors. Many of these contributors are experts in their area but some are just interested readers. Contributors are able to post material to Wikipedia and correct errors in the existing text.


Can I use Wikipedia in my research ?

• Many academics and librarians will state flatly that you should refer to Wikipedia in your submitted work, but like any encyclopedia Wikipedia can be used as a starting point for your research.
• Wikipedia can give you a broad outline of an area and enable you to 'find your way into the subject'. The continuous editing means that you can find out about developments that have yet to be incorporated into print or subscription based services.
• In some cases the information is actually authoritative but you need to test this authority by checking against more scholarly information sources. You could also check the history of discussion on the topic and track who contributed and how the contributors arrived at the point of view presented.

Should I refer to Wikipedia in my essay?

• Generally you would not cite any encyclopedia in an essay. Encyclopedias are not really intended to function as a research-level information source.
• To compound the problem the information in Wikipedia can be in constant process of editing and its authority will always be questioned because there is no formal review process of what is published
• If you do insist on using information from Wikipedia it would be wise to make an argument for why this the only source or why it can be trusted (you could do this by referring to other sources which support what Wikipedia states).
• Even Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, advises students not to cite Wikipedia .

Like me you might find Wikipedia an invaluable research tool when people are confusing you with Information Technology jargon or acronyms.