I disagree about Wikipedia, Kristin. My experience has been that they do a good job on fact checking most of the information before it gets entered. An expert is a pretty debatable concept even with credentials. Wikipedia generally supplies both arguments on controversial issues which might make it wish-washy to some people, but by knowing the argument on both sides, someone with an open mind can more easily refute what they don’t agree with.

Hi Bob-

Thanks for adding your perspectives. I agree with you about Wikipedia. I use it regularly and find it very accurate.

My review comment frames two opposing viewpoints I consistently hear. Some teachers don’t allow students to use Wikipedia as a source in papers because in their opinion, it doesn’t represent an established, more accountable resource; there are other teachers who are more familiar with open-source resources who understand how accurate and informative a wiki can be.

Anybody else out there, be they an educator or not, want to weigh in on this?

Wikipedia has made some significant improvements in its editorial processes in recent years, such as requiring editors to cite their sources. As a result, it’s quality is increasing, particularly for science articles. One recent study of thousands of articles found an average of 4 errors per Wikipedia article, versus 3 for Britannica. However, quality remains spotty for articles on minor topics. As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia is a good place to start a research project, but I don’t think it should be used as the only or primary source for any topic, as it doesn’t do any original reporting and errors are still more likely from an amateur than professional publication. That said, I wholeheartedly support Wikipedia’s mission and have just taken on a major project for them, leading the development of new features for its article feedback tool. Stay tuned for more on this fascinating project.