|
The fact that Wikipedia allows anyone to write articles or edit them and we don't see a much higher level of vandalism is amazing. I don't really care whether or not a professor allows it because it always seems to be based on personal opinion and trying to reduce the complex implications of using it. In my personal experience, the things I typically research the most on Wikipedia have been quite accurate and in depth compared to closed paid sources. My school's wealth of access does usually receive more weight because of popular opinion but thats what I use. But for starting points or for minor non-controversial details (Like any Encyclopedia Should be used), Wikipedia still remains my weapon of choice.
Also, there have been studies about Wikipedia's accuracy. None of them are really conclusive, but they definitely provide some points worth thinking about.
Wikipedia has some very strong advantages. People are free to correct errors and provide sources easily. People are comprised of non-experts, hobbyist and experts. People are not restricted in the classical ways other encyclopedias are in terms of length. Wikipedia tends to sort the relevance of material presented very well. Additionally, People who contribute to Wikipedia can contribute to topics they really have very strong interest in and people who have share those same interest can edit (rather than some general editor who may not have a background in the subject editing). Its also completely open to the people and available in tons of different languages.
In my opinion, the controversy and scrutiny the Wikipedia project has come under may have one very priceless effect. People may realize they need to approach everything they read with a critical mind instead of blind consumption.
|