BIO 121: Anatomy & Physiology I

Wikipedia is a wildly popular, free online encyclopedia. The English language version contains over 2,000,000 articles. It has no print counterpart but there are plans to publish a one volume counterpart in Germany.

From its start in 2001, Wikipedia's content has been written and edited by the public. Anyone can create a free account and contribute new articles or edit existing articles for most articles. Recently an editorial layer has been added to entries on controversial topics. There are general guidelines all contributors are supposed to follow, such as writing from a neutral point of view, keeping content factual and citing sources. In theory, errors in articles will be spotted quickly by vigilant contributors who will correct the content.

Scholars have no special standing among Wikipedia contributors. Enthusiasts and amateurs are encouraged to write and edit articles.

Some articles on controversial topics have become battlegrounds. Other articles have been maliciously vandalized. In some cases, administrators have locked access to articles to protect Wikipedia from overtly biased or false information.

New or updated articles appear very quickly. Breaking news, from natural disasters to celebrities' activities, may be added to Wikipedia within hours of its occurrence.

Students (and faculty) use Wikipedia because it is quick, easy, and almost certain to have some information on any given topic.

Because of its user-created content and lack of scholarly review process, many faculty simply ban students from using Wikipedia as a source for course assignments. Should they?

Arguments against using Wikipedia

• A general encyclopedia is not an appropriate source for any college level work.
• Wikipedia articles are not scholarly and lack a peer review process.
• Given Wikipedia's ever changeable content, what students cite may not be what appears on that page when the paper is read.
• There is always the possibility that a student will use a page that has been vandalized or simply has inaccurate content.
• Articles written by enthusiasts, not scholars, may be accurate as far as they go, but may leave out important issues or viewpoints.

Arguments for using Wikipedia

• Articles are timely and can be updated without waiting for a new print edition.
• The Wikipedia community polices itself efficiently and corrects factual errors promptly.
• It covers popular culture topics that more traditional sources may ignore.
• It is a great starting point for research with links that point to further sources.

Remember

• All sources need to be evaluated critically. Facts should be checked in more than one work. Real research relies on multiple sources.
• Using a source a professor has explicitly banned shows poor judgement on the part of a student.
• NECC librarians are always ready to assist a student who is having trouble finding credible sources.