In a different thread, the contextually off-topic subject of Wikipedia’s reliability—or lack thereof—was raised.
Discussing it further there would have been inappropriate hence this thread. The claim was made that Wikipedia is inherently and absolutely unreliable on the basis that “anyone can write an article and they do”. This was assumed to be proof that “Wikipedia is not a good source”.
As a naïve claim, it seems fairly powerful. If you didn’t know anything about Wikipedia and it was described to you, including the fact that it allows “anyone” to write or edit articles, in the absence of other information you might be incredulous that is capable of being a “good source”.
But personal incredulity is not a good way to decide factual things, and the lack of additional information certainly leads to skepticism about the value of Wikipedia. Skepticism is a good thing, a tool to dig out truth. Questioning the received wisdom and default assumptions of the crowd is how progress is made. So, let’s question it.
Is it true that “anyone can edit an article”? Yes, it is. But it is also true that the edit can be to distort or correct information in the article. It is both the source of falsehood and truth so in itself it doesn’t prove or even suggest anything. It is simply part of a process that needs to be understood to be properly evaluated.
It turns out there have been a number of studies on the reliability of Wikipedia. One area where Wikipedia does exceptionally well is in self-repair. When a person adds invented facts or purposefully incorrect information into a Wikipedia article, it is called “vandalism”. The studies found that vandalism was very quickly spotted and repaired, sometimes in minutes and unless it slips by the correctors, within 48 hours.
Yes, sometimes vandalism escapes detection and can cause problems as the “facts” introduced are repeated, even in newspapers and scientific papers. But there are two things about these cases:
1. The content is generally trivial amounting to personal jokes or unimportant details (e.g. a fake nickname for an animal).
2. The people citing these things had in front of them the opportunity to evaluate the veracity of the information they chose to use.
This sort of “unreliability” largely comes down to lazy research. Wikipedia articles are, by policy, supposed to be a summation of primary sources. Original work, including novel synthesis not otherwise citable in a primary source are not keeping with that policy. This is why the phrase “[citation needed]” came into popular culture. It is a way that non experts can help insure that purported experts are held to account.
Any fact in a Wikipedia article that has the [citation needed] annotation should be considered unreliable until a citation is made. And, this is the point about lazy research. If you cite a Wikipedia as, or just assume it is, a primary source you are using Wikipedia “off label”. And in this case that off label use is not likely to be therapeutic.
Wikipedia’s bibliographies are where the real information is. If you need to know more depth, or want to be sure something is authoritative, then checking the primary sources is the way to do it. You don’t have to take the content of faith or imagine Wikipedia, corporately, is an “authority”.
Another problem with a blanket condemnation of Wikipedia’s reliability is the great variability in quality of articles depending on subject matter. Wikipedia’s technical content is generally excellent and very reliable because of the number and nature of the people involved in the technical areas, misinformation is very rapidly distilled out of most technical articles. In addition a lot of the content is from very well informed experts who want the correct information available.
So, comparing articles on Calculus to articles on the lives of Leibniz and Newton doesn’t work. They are incommensurate. The Calculus articles are either mathematically correct or not (with few exceptions), and the humanities articles are largely opinion about how to interpret history and human factors.
I could go on, but I won’t. I will finish by saying the Wikipedia is a really fantastic way to get started researching a topic. It will give you some background, and in many cases enough detail that you don’t need to go further. But, it is only as reliable as you are. If the subject matter is important and at all controversial, if it can’t be tested by using it, then you must perform due diligence and check that there is a citation to back it up, and then follow that link to the information. If not, don’t consider it more than “something you heard” about the topic.
Discussing it further there would have been inappropriate hence this thread. The claim was made that Wikipedia is inherently and absolutely unreliable on the basis that “anyone can write an article and they do”. This was assumed to be proof that “Wikipedia is not a good source”.
As a naïve claim, it seems fairly powerful. If you didn’t know anything about Wikipedia and it was described to you, including the fact that it allows “anyone” to write or edit articles, in the absence of other information you might be incredulous that is capable of being a “good source”.
But personal incredulity is not a good way to decide factual things, and the lack of additional information certainly leads to skepticism about the value of Wikipedia. Skepticism is a good thing, a tool to dig out truth. Questioning the received wisdom and default assumptions of the crowd is how progress is made. So, let’s question it.
Is it true that “anyone can edit an article”? Yes, it is. But it is also true that the edit can be to distort or correct information in the article. It is both the source of falsehood and truth so in itself it doesn’t prove or even suggest anything. It is simply part of a process that needs to be understood to be properly evaluated.
It turns out there have been a number of studies on the reliability of Wikipedia. One area where Wikipedia does exceptionally well is in self-repair. When a person adds invented facts or purposefully incorrect information into a Wikipedia article, it is called “vandalism”. The studies found that vandalism was very quickly spotted and repaired, sometimes in minutes and unless it slips by the correctors, within 48 hours.
Yes, sometimes vandalism escapes detection and can cause problems as the “facts” introduced are repeated, even in newspapers and scientific papers. But there are two things about these cases:
1. The content is generally trivial amounting to personal jokes or unimportant details (e.g. a fake nickname for an animal).
2. The people citing these things had in front of them the opportunity to evaluate the veracity of the information they chose to use.
This sort of “unreliability” largely comes down to lazy research. Wikipedia articles are, by policy, supposed to be a summation of primary sources. Original work, including novel synthesis not otherwise citable in a primary source are not keeping with that policy. This is why the phrase “[citation needed]” came into popular culture. It is a way that non experts can help insure that purported experts are held to account.
Any fact in a Wikipedia article that has the [citation needed] annotation should be considered unreliable until a citation is made. And, this is the point about lazy research. If you cite a Wikipedia as, or just assume it is, a primary source you are using Wikipedia “off label”. And in this case that off label use is not likely to be therapeutic.
Wikipedia’s bibliographies are where the real information is. If you need to know more depth, or want to be sure something is authoritative, then checking the primary sources is the way to do it. You don’t have to take the content of faith or imagine Wikipedia, corporately, is an “authority”.
Another problem with a blanket condemnation of Wikipedia’s reliability is the great variability in quality of articles depending on subject matter. Wikipedia’s technical content is generally excellent and very reliable because of the number and nature of the people involved in the technical areas, misinformation is very rapidly distilled out of most technical articles. In addition a lot of the content is from very well informed experts who want the correct information available.
So, comparing articles on Calculus to articles on the lives of Leibniz and Newton doesn’t work. They are incommensurate. The Calculus articles are either mathematically correct or not (with few exceptions), and the humanities articles are largely opinion about how to interpret history and human factors.
I could go on, but I won’t. I will finish by saying the Wikipedia is a really fantastic way to get started researching a topic. It will give you some background, and in many cases enough detail that you don’t need to go further. But, it is only as reliable as you are. If the subject matter is important and at all controversial, if it can’t be tested by using it, then you must perform due diligence and check that there is a citation to back it up, and then follow that link to the information. If not, don’t consider it more than “something you heard” about the topic.