Wikipedia as a Credible Source

Wikipedia as a credible source

Wikipedia is seen as the biggest online, collaborative, multilingual Internet encyclopedia available right now. But, is Wikipedia a trustworthy source that can be cited in our professional papers and researches? In the following lines I'm going to present in a fairly manner my argumentation on why I think Wikipedia is not a citable source. According to Spatt (2005), a fair argument is one that has the following attributes; it presents both sides of the argument. It provides a complete account of the argument. It makes sure that you and your reader understand whether the source really supports the idea that you are citing. It provides a fair presentation. (p. 413). That being said, I will try to build my argument and prove that Wikipedia is not a citable source following those guidelines.

Wikipedia, "The Wiki" might be the biggest online encyclopedia available today. It also may be a great starting point for researches. The wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources; however they are not a credible source for references and I will explain why. First according to Helm (2005), Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales said during an interview when asked: "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia?" He replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." If Mr. Wales admits that his own product, the wiki and encyclopedias in general shouldn't be sources of citable information then why we would use them as reputable resources?

Second, because it collaborative nature, every article in the wiki can be edited by any user that log into the site. From the systems security standpoint this is a big flaw. If every person that contributes to the wiki is the editor of the article as well, it means that the user can post whatever he/she wants to post without a human source validating that the information written is credible and factual. This means that anybody can potentially impersonate an editor and post false information on any article. Third, according to Helm (2005), "Wikipedia should be thought of as a work in progress. It's our intention to be Britannica or better quality, and our policies and everything are designed with that goal in mind" If the Wiki is a work in progress that means that we cannot consider it as an authoritative source. Not being authoritative does not contribute in any manner towards Wikipedia being a credible and factual source. In order to know if a book, article or website is credible and responsible we must know who the author is, their credentials, what information is available from the resource, where did