Caution: not might be what you think it is…

What is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online that is written, updated, rewritten, and edited by registered site users around the world known as “Wikipedians”.

The concept of a freely accessible online “work in progress” is known as a “” (Lin, 2004). While it is possible to view the user profile of individual contributors, one of the prime features of a wiki is that the information is collectively owned, shared, and changed by Internet users who have access to that wiki. Wikipedia is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.

Why Wikipedia? The main philosophy behind Wikipedia is that the sum total of the ideas of Internet users are as credible and valid as the published views of experts who have advanced degrees and extensive experience in their field. Like any wiki, Wikipedians do not “own” or assume intellectual property of the ideas and text, as the information is shared or altered by any/all contributors.

I’m not sure what you mean…. An example may be most helpful. Consider Wikipedia’s article on global warming. This text has been continually written, edited, and rewritten by hundreds of Internet users around the world over the past few years.

When you open and read Wikipedia’s global warming article, you are reading a text that:

• is the sum of all the contributions to this article until that moment.

Explanation: The information in the article, in terms of both the content and language, will likely change in the next few hours, days, or months as continue to contribute to/modify the article. Whether that modification is significant or subtle, the ever-changing nature of the site means that the information you cited today from Wikipedia has likely changed by the time the grade is placed on your research paper.

• is most likely written by someone who has an opinion on global warming, however, the authors may or may not have formally studied about global warming and have rarely published on this topic outside of Wikipedia.

Explanation: The Wikipedia site (2006, December) states that the majority of its contributors are college or university students who are studying the subjects they are writing about on Wikipedia.

• could have just been revised or edited incorrectly, as well as, intentionally vandalized.

Explanation: Although, it is the Wikipedia community’s responsibility to eliminate errors, vandalism, propaganda, or flamers, you might be reading the accurate or biased version in the meantime. Created by Cosette Taylor, Communications Instructor for the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Manitoba, [email protected]

Wikipedia includes gaps in coverage. The patchy nature of the information on Wikipedia is likely a consequence of the range and bias(es) of the individuals who contribute to the articles at any given time.

Thoughts from the Communication Instructor My view is that reference books, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica, are useful in providing a general understanding of a topic or can be used to narrow down a topic at the outset of the writing process. However, it is still best to cite current primary sources from research publications, such as nursing journals, books, or databases, not secondary sources like dictionaries or .

I think it is very important for you to realize that the most significant criticism of Wikipedia is that anyone can be a Wikipedian, to the extent that many articles on Wikipedia are written anonymously. For instance, in the Wikipedia profiles, 29 Wikipedians identified themselves as nurses. To check out their profiles, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_nurses Moreover, 42 Wikipedians identified themselves as “prehospital care workers”. To check out their profiles go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_prehospital_care_workers

In sum, none of the above nurse or prehospital care worker Wikipedians identified themselves as academics, professional researchers, or professors, nor do the contributors list publications outside of Wikipedia. This lack of credibility is reason enough to avoid citing Wikipedia in your academic paper.

Presently, the majority of articles on Wikipedia do not include a reference list, so readers often cannot verify the accuracy of a statement/article. A lack of reference list is an indication that this source is not academic and should not be cited in your paper.

Overall, I suspect that most students use Wikipedia because they have not been able to find information from libraries or databases as quickly and easily as they have on Wikipedia. If you are having difficulty finding information for your paper, I suggest you either spend some time with a U of M librarian or consider choosing a different topic for your paper.

Interestingly, even Wikipedia’s founder, , cautions students against using Wikipedia in a research paper. Wales claims to receive an average of 10 e-mails per week from students who complain they received an “F” on their academic paper for citing Wikipedia (Wikipedia, 2006, December).

I hope you find this summary useful. Feel free to contact me if you have further questions. Cosette Communications Instructor for the Faculty of Nursing 474-6353 or [email protected]

References Giles, J. (2005). Special report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. Lin, A. (2004). Wikipedia as participatory journalism: Reliable sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Paper for the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism (April 16-17, 2004), University of Texas at Austin. Wikipedia. (2006, December). Retrieved December 1-5th, 2006 from http://www.wikipedia.org

Created by Cosette Taylor, Communications Instructor for the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Manitoba, [email protected]