Wikipedia is a Credible Source

Hello everyone! I am arguing that Wikipedia is not a credible source. What is the standard of credibility? I believe this question is important in this debate, as the standard of credibility is important. For this argument, I would make the case that the Academic standard is the standard to which we should determine credibility. This standard of credibility loosely begins in high school, continues to the University level, and is logically passed on to professional research. A standard of credibility is vital since credibility is not relative in terms of research, and the means by which we conduct that research. So lets begin. Types of Sources: In the wonderful world of academia there are three types of sources; primary, secondary, and tertiary. In research we typically want to have mostly primary sources, and more than that we want to look at (if possible) peer-reviewed journals. This of course is ideal, but there are cases where we must use secondary sources, which are basically works that analyze primary sources. The third type of source, tertiary, is defined as “resources [that] provide overviews of topics by synthesizing information gathered from other resources.” [1] Wikipedia falls under the category of a tertiary source, which are typically rejected in academic research, but are utilized to find other sources. In some instances a tertiary source can be used as a secondary source, but this is the exception not the rule. What is a Wiki? “A wiki is a Web site where any user can modify the information, and thus there is no way to verify authorship. Examples of wikis include Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikiquotes. These sources may provide a general overview or lead to more credible sources, but avoid using them in an essay.” [2] The Problem with Wikipedia: The problem of Wikipedia is indeed at risk due to the fact that “anyone can edit it.” Authorship from any source is important in the world of academia. In searching for credible sources, even on an .org, or .edu Website, we should be able to identify the author. Harvard’s guide to Using Sources states the following about Wikipedia, “Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation...Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.”[3] Wikipedia is not a credible source: In a 2005 interview with Business Week Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? To which 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." Furthermore, “Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.” [4] Wales also, states, “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.” [4] Ironically we are placed in a pickle when looking at the Wikipedia page titled, “Wikipedia: Academic use” where it states, “Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.” [5] According to the Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is not a credible source. Of course, if it is credible than the statement above should be trusted in, which deems that it is not credible. Regardless of how you slice the piece of cake here, it tastes the same, in that Wikipedia is not credible. Conclusion: In Wikipedia’s source type, function, open source nature, and its own pages, we can see that Wikipedia is not a credible source. The founder himself attests to this, and in any research endeavor beyond high-school, we should not be citing Wikipedia. If you can’t site it than it is not a credible source. However, I will say that Wikipedia can give those conducting research places to look for sources, but even then, because of Wikipedia’s nature and function, we must carefully (as always) evaluate the sources provided. Thank you all and I bid Pro good luck. -L.I.L [1] http://gethelp.library.upenn.edu... [2] https://www.ivcc.edu... [3] http://isites.harvard.edu... [4] http://chronicle.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...