Embedded Files
Wikipedia: An Academic Travesty
by Maria W.
Seeing that this school year is soon coming to a close, I thought that talking about one of my biggest struggles in school would be a suitable way to end off strong.
So, first things first, what I dread most about getting school work is if it involves research. And no, my fear has nothing to do with citing the sources that I use (although it is a tedious process). Instead, what ruffles my feathers is not being able to use the resources found on Wikipedia. In academics, Wikipedia is often considered the most fraudulent source that we students could work with, and this needs to change. Thus, here are reasons why Wikipedia should be allowed as a source for school purposes.
Click the pic to access the Wikipedia homepage
Wikipedia is a comprehensive source
As its name suggests, Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia “is able to treat [a] topic's more extensive meaning in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject.” It goes to show that it is a very comprehensive source of information, with approximately 56 million articles in its database. It is a bit of a one-stop-shop for all your academic research needs (like getting everything from a local Costco, but instead, Wikipedia provides the much-needed information for schoolwork).
There are countless instances where I found the perfect Wikipedia article for a school assignment but was not allowed to use it as a source. Instead, I would have to go to countless other sketchy websites to shamble those bits and pieces of information into my research, even though a single Wikipedia article would have covered it all and done the job.
Wikipedia is accessible and easy to understand
To date, Wikipedia is offered in 321 different languages, making it a very accessible source of information. I cannot speak for the other language versions, but I can confirm from experience that the English articles are written in a digestible, easy-to-understand language. In comparison to other sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia’s language is much easier to comprehend. Britannica’s articles are known for being thoroughly researched and comprehensive sources, it is most definitely a reputable source with extremely proficient writers and editors. However, I find that the language is more elaborate and usually requires multiple read-throughs to understand. With Wikipedia articles, the terminology is straightforward, getting a lot of the same information across using much simpler terms. Among other things, Wikipedia still holds a competitive edge with accessibility since Encyclopedia Britannica is only offered in one language: English.
Wikipedia is not 'reliable'
The biggest concern people have with Wikipedia is how it is open-sourced, meaning anyone can edit or change the information found in its articles. This is certainly a valid point, but really if we think about it, much of the internet is also open-sourced. In many cases, Wikipedia articles provide information that is not only accurate but up-to-date as well. It is not feasible for everything in its database to be factually correct, as with most sources found on the internet. I have actually seen some websites copy Wikipedia articles word for word, which goes to show that nothing online is 100% trustworthy nor authentic. Also, the main ideas I find in many other articles tend to share similar information with the Wikipedia articles on the same topic. So why not just allow students to use Wikipedia articles when they get the same information in one source?
In addition, Wikipedia articles commonly include long lists of references at the end of the main content. The footnotes are for the benefit of the readers so that they know where the information comes from. As a final point, there are many measures the site implements to reduce misinformation or vandalism of content. To illustrate, Wikipedia allows registered writers only to create new articles and edit articles on controversial topics. Each article's version history is also retained in case the accurate version needs restoring. Thanks to these preventions, we can have peace of mind that we are getting factual knowledge from Wikipedia's articles.
Summary
In the end, is Wikipedia the most superior and unparalleled source to ever exist? No, of course not. But because it is such a widespread, comprehensive source, I believe it surpasses many other online information sources. The information in Wikipedia articles does not fry the brain with complicated vocabulary, it delivers that knowledge in just the right way. Plus, it features information that is relevant and accurate. Wikipedia is more often than not a very useful tool for research purposes, proving why it should not be as demonized as it is for school use.
Lastly, and might I argue most importantly, Wikipedia’s database is expansive, the sky is the only limit with this source. As I have said before, Wikipedia provides all the information needed in one place. The frustration I have with researching for school work is unreal: I have to scour the internet in its entirety, jumping from one questionable source to the next just to find all the information already covered in a single Wikipedia article. And do not even get me started on the time spent citing all of my sources, that is a whole other endeavour in itself.
So, after all this, what is it that I propose? I do not hope for Wikipedia to be the only source we can or should use in academics. That would be a terrible idea, as I firmly believe in not putting all my eggs in one basket when researching, as in not getting information from only one source. Rather, I think there should be a tradeoff between allowing some Wikipedia sources in school research, along with a combination of other reliable sources in that research.
I hope this article introduces Wikipedia in a new, more favourable light, because while it is not perfect, it still is a well-rounded and valuable source of information. Believe it or not, the only Wikipedia articles that I have cited this entire school year are for this article, which is quite disappointing. I look forward to seeing more acceptance of Wikipedia in academic research in the coming school years. Until then, cheers to the brighter days of freely citing Wikipedia articles in school.
Layout by Jessie Deng
Page updated
Report abuse