The Great Debate: Wikipedia's Credibility and Validity

The Great Debate: Wikipedia's Credibility and Validity

The arguments for and against Wikipedia's credibility and validity are diverse and fervent on both sides of the argument. Yet, each argument is relevant in determining the credibility of Wikipedia as an academic source. Prior to this week, I stood on the side against using Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form for academic purposes. However, I now find myself concluding that Wikipedia can and should be used in the early stages of researching topics when writing academic material so long as the author vets the material ensuring its credibility, impartiality, style and tone, and currency.

The Arguments For and Against Wikipedia's Credibility

The arguments against Wikipedia's credibility stem primarily from the sources Wikipedia utilizes to obtain its information. Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that allows any online visitor the ability to edit the content contained therein (Nix 2010). While volunteers working for Wikipedia edit the content of the information on the site, the editors are in most instances not subject matter experts in the material being edited (Nix 2010). Moreover, much of the information lacks citation to sources supporting the information stated (Nix 2010). As a result, Wikipedia does not certify the legitimacy of its content, which calls into question the credibility, reliability and validity of Wikipedia and has led to multiple instances of plagiarism by Wikipedia editors.

The arguments that Wikipedia is a credible rely on Wikipedia's habit of ensuring information is properly cited with links where the reader can find additional information or ensure the information provided is accurate (Potash 2010). Wikipedia has strict standards of ensuring the information posted by visitors wishing to edit Wikipedia is backed up by sources (Potash 2010). If a visitor posts information that is not sourced or the sources do not reflect the information posted, Wikipedia's editors delete the information if it cannot be properly sourced (Potash 2010). The argument that Wikipedia can be modified and therefore is not credible fails because, according to Davidson (2007), "several comparative studies have shown that errors in Wikipedia are not more frequent than in comparable print sources" (p. 15). In fact, Wikipedia is far more accurate than scholarly print sources because the errors found in Wikipedia can be easily and quickly corrected while the errors found in scholarly print sources cannot be easily and quickly corrected or in some instances corrected at all (Davidson 2007).

Wikipedia can be used as a Credible Source

The above arguments for and against Wikipedia being used as a credible source have importance. However, instead of drawing a line in the sand with the conclusion that Wikipedia is or is not a credible and valid source for scholarly writing, I suggest a somewhat different approach. Namely, Wikipedia is credible and valid enough to be used as a starting point for research in finding additional sources and materials for specific information much like any other encyclopedia.

When working with Wikipedia, it is essential to remember that "credibility is linked to the knowledgeability and seriousness of the individual or the disinterested commitment of the organization that originated and maintains" Wikipedia (Spatt 348, 2010). Thus, an evaluation of the information a scholar intends to use from Wikipedia should be completed prior to its use. In conducting this evaluation, a scholar can utilize the guidelines established for establishing the creditability and validity of any source as discussed by B. Spatt; namely; credentials, impartiality, style and tone, and currency (Spatt 2010).

Credentials determine whether "the author of the material can be trusted to know what he or she is writing about" (Spatt