IS WIKIPEDIA A VIABLE RESEARCH SOURCE?

By Taylor Seupel

YES! IT IS! Wikipedia is a great first step It gives a basic understanding Articles can be used It’s convenient

The Controversy

The Reality It’s Useful.

Quantity Has Quality

Wikiped

ia

Encycl

opedi

a Brita

nnica

Great S

oviet

Encycl

opedi

a

Encycl

opédi

e

Microso

ft Enca

rta

Encycl

opedi

a Ameri

cana

Grolier

Multim

edia

Encyc

loped

ia Onli

ne

Colum

bia En

cyclop

edia

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Articles (Thousands)

Articles (Thousands)

Number of Articles Over Years

Traffic From Google

How people research

32%

24%

24%

20%

Use of Research Tools

Yahoo AnswersFirst Site on GoogleWikipediaData Base

Editing a page Anyone can do it! Can lead to false information…

Verifying Information: History

Verifying Information: Talk Peer Review Discussion

Verifying Information: Citations, Citations, Citations.

Look to the References

Measuring Up Other “reliable” sources

Where do they get THEIR info?

Paid Professionals

Handling New Information Wikipedia is constantly updated Encyclopedias are not

Conclusions It’s a good place to start There are some issues

Sources http://graphjam.memebase.com/vote/page/1244/ http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/exhibits.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia http://pewresearch.org/pubs/460/wikipedia http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100625/2351149966.shtml http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html http://www.iep.utm.edu/reliabil/ http://gulnazahmad.hubpages.com/hub/-Primary-and-Secondary-Data http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2006/12/26/writing-an-encyclopedia-article/