The Problem With Wikipedia as a Reliable Source
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I love Wikipedia. It's one of my favorite sites out there, not only because there is so much information, but because it really gives you a general feel for various opinions on certain topics. And I don't really mean politics — I mean more about culture.
But I digress, before I even begin. My problem with Wikipedia is that, although I would consider it to be fairly accurate, it is not a legitimate source of information for legitimate publications. Why? Because you just never know.
On the Baltimore Sun's Podcasts page, they include a link to the Wikipedia entry on podcasts. Now, while I'm sure that this entry probably does a better job of explaining podcasts than the guys at the Sun could do, by directing potential consumers to the Wikipedia entry, the Sun is endorsing what is in the entry. They can't be sure that someone won't come along and edit the entry in a way that they wouldn't endorse.
What would Wikipedia say? They'd say that their editors would clean up the mistakes. And most of the time, I'm sure that would happen. But what about the "one time" when the entry contains completely false information, like in the John Seigenthaler case?
Imagine if a legitimate publication — be it newspaper, magazine, or even Web site — links to that information. When the libel suit comes to their door, are they going to blame Wikipedia? I doubt a judge would accept that in court.
On a similar note, the Ithacan Online of Ithaca College has a good article about professors allowing Wikipedia as a resource for students' papers. If I were a professor, I wouldn't accept it. But I still love it.
Filed in Web
