The Case Against Wikipedia

When students come into the library for sessions on research, invariably we end up discussing Wikipedia for a moment or two.  As librarians and people who regularly work with students, we know it's often a place where students start their research or go for quick answers.  I'm constantly dissuading students as to why Wikipedia is not a desirable place for conducting real research, especially research that will be turned in for a grade, for the obvious reasons of the authority of the author/contributor and the lack of proper citation at times.  Following Hurricane Sandy, an excellent example of the first reason has been chronicled by the mainstream media.



His name is Ken Mampel, and he's currently the primary contributor to the Wikipedia article on Hurricane Sandy.  He is 56 years old, unemployed, and does not believe in climate change; hence the lack of the climate change mention as a possible factor in Hurricane Sandy's devastating impact despite several articles written up in recent days to the contrary.  Popular Science has done an excellent write up that you can take a look at here. This is an excellent example as to why one must always follow-up on one's sources, and why it's important not rely on a sole article/viewpoint when exploring a topic. It also serves a great point of emphasis why Wikipedia, although at times informative and entertaining, is not the most reputable place to turn for information. Coe's library has several different reference resources available online for our students and users, such as Credo Reference and Britannica Online, accessible via the library's website. Consider these resources the next time that you're thinking about clicking on a Wikipedia link.

-Katelyn, Head of Reference