This is an image of the logo of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
For many of us, we were told in school not to use Wikipedia as a source of data because it was not considered trustworthy. The fact that ‘anyone’ could go online and change the articles caused people to doubt the website’s credibility and believe that its open model allows for misinformation or even vandalism of information. However, the truth behind whether Wikipedia is trustworthy or not is much more complex.
Despite the fact that Wikipedia often matches other professional knowledge bases in accuracy, many people maintain skepticism and hesitate to accept and use it. According to a Nature article, in which the author pitted Wikipedia against notable resource Encyclopedia Britannica, titled “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head,” both websites maintained around the same number of discrepancies in their facts. Others have conducted similar studies, including, but not limited to, The Guardian, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, PC Pro, the Canadian Library Association, and Library Journal, and have all reached the same conclusion: Wikipedia is, for the most part, reliable (Thomas). While it is not perfectly accurate, because no information website can be, it is still on par with other resources that are considered trustworthy, and yet, there is a heavy stigma that surrounds the use of Wikipedia.
Perhaps the myth behind Wikipedia has less to do with the internet encyclopedia itself and more to do with human psychology. The idea that virtually anyone can edit articles on the website violates traditional expertise norms (Epistemic Authority) when it comes to receiving information. Often, people are conditioned to get their data from a highly-regarded elite few to ensure total credibility. However, when people encounter open sources like Wikipedia, which bypass standard research practices and reveal often gatekept information, their conditioning is broken, leading them to believe that the knowledge is not vetted properly and must be incorrect. Another logical pattern observed when it comes to Wikipedia is an accountability error. Because it is open to the public, many consider the editors to be anonymous. This means that in the event of an inaccuracy, there is no individual expert responsible, causing a reduction in perceived accountability.
Although Wikipedia’s core mission is to allow anyone, expert and novice alike, to report neutral information through collaboration, thus using teamwork to eliminate any unseen bias from articles, many are still skeptical regarding these aspects. For a long while, the world considered Wikipedia’s strengths, its openness and continued growth, to be weaknesses due to humans’ disfavor of nontraditional data resources and anonymity. However, some people are beginning to utilize this powerful website’s massive storage of information for preliminary research, perhaps giving Wikipedia a much deserved second chance.
Works Cited
Elmimouni, Houda, Forte, Andrea, and Morgan, Jonathan. “Why People Trust Wikipedia Articles: Credibility Assessment Strategies Used by Readers.” ACM.org, 2022. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3555051.3555052
Garfinkel, Simson. “Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth.” MIT Technology Review, 2008. https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/20/218162/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/
Thomas, Paul. “Wikipedia.” University of Kansas Libraries, 2018. https://opentext.ku.edu/becredible/chapter/wikipedia/
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia