True or False?

 If you had a choice to either go to the library to get a book for your research, or to access Wikipedia online as a source, which would you choose?

After reading your comments I think it is safe to say that we all agree; Wikipedia is not completely accurate, but it is convenient. It does serve as an excellent resource to begin your examination of a particular subject. No question, Wikipedia is a good place to start. However, if we are all in agreement that Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for accuracy it begs the questions; why isn’t someone doing something to change this? Why can’t this single online source be improved to the point of being considered a “reliable source”? I do understand that there are some well-intentioned people doing their best to edit major articles on the site but is it really enough? Who defines what is important and what is not? Is importance not just relative to the needs of the user? If you accept this then you must agree that all information should be accurate.

A point was made that there are people who volunteer to edit the articles on Wikipedia. If they aren’t getting paid to improve the article and the site overall, what is their motive? Are they truly objective or are they simply capitalizing on the opportunity to have their personal bias accepted by the uninitiated as fact. I am not saying that what they are doing is malicious or that they should stop. I am simply asking whether it is the general good or personal interest that drives them. Where are the checks and balances? I mean, even the name “Wikipedia” implies that this resource can be used as some sort of “encyclopedia”; that it is the definitive. Should we be fully relying on people who might or might not have background and education to be editors for Wikipedia? How do we know the information they edit or even add is correct?

Something that I am happy about is that Wikipedia recognizes that they are not completely reliable, and that we shouldn’t always trust their articles. It clearly states in the Wikipedia disclaimer that “nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information”. Since they put their in their disclaimer it ensures that people can’t turn around and blame them for incorrect information. The problem is, many people don’t take the time to read disclaimers. They find the site and think it is some sort of “encyclopedia”. In turn, these people represent information in Wikipedia as fact. In a way it is no different than the multiplying of an unsubstantiated rumour.

A section I never knew about was the “risk disclaimer” for Wikipedia; the headline is “Use Wikipedia At Your Own Risk”. Reading this makes it seem like Wikipedia is a scary and dangerous site to use. I think it is just the way that they worded it, but in all fairness, it’s true. What they are actually trying to say is; if you rely on information found in their site you do so at your own risk. Why do they make this statement? Simple…they know that the information and data presented in their site is inaccurate. If someone uses this site with 100% confidence, well, that is a problem for them. In the full risk disclaimer, there are many sentences in bold and/or upper case text. This is a smart idea for Wikipedia owners….cover their own butt from the start.

I do agree that Wikipedia is known for being accessible but in this case I think a more appropriate word would be “convenient”. In most cases, it is at or near the top of the search results no matter what is typed. This is a big advantage for Wikipedia because if someone sees they are at the top of the list, then they are more inclined to go to the site. Whereas if they were number 10 on the results page people will be less likely to go to their site, or even think of using them. It is very tempting even for me to just click the first site, which is usually Wikipedia, and to just go from there. I have the knowledge of its flaws, but sometimes when all I want is my research to be over, Wikipedia can be quite tempting. For most of us, it is a convenient place to start. If you accept it as this and no more you are probably safe. Unfortunately for some it is a source that they wrongly view as reliable. People access this site and then form opinions and draw conclusions based on flawed information. This is nothing short of dangerous.

With all the knowledge of its flaws, will you still use it? 

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer