The Defence of Wikipedia

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Despite Wikipedia's vast collection of information and ease of use, some people believe that Wikipedia is an unreliable source for research purposes. You most commonly hear this from school teachers and faculty, but others have been convinced as well. Wikipedia is claimed to be untrustworthy with the biggest argument being: anyone can edit and change the content of the articles. Wikipedia itself says that not everything here is viable. I believe that Wikipedia tries to be reliable whenever it can be, and for the most part, is.

The argument that says anyone can edit is true for the most part, but not entirely. While most pages are free to edit, important pages like news high traffic articles and articles involving news and politics are protected. This prevents unauthorized people from editing the page at all. Years ago, some politicians have been known to edit their own page, tampering with the information to benefit themselves. These pages have all been protected so only authorized personnel can perform edits. This is so article manipulation of this nature does not happen.

Occasionally, you'll see a page with information that is undoubtedly incorrect. Whether it's satirical vandalism or an attempt to change people's beliefs, you know that bit of info is completely wrong. This is not very common. Not only are the majority of edits actually constructive, but also pages are monitored, and vandalism is almost immediately removed. It's certainly possible that you do not catch the vandalism, and then go on the use the information elsewhere. Not many people know this, but every version of a page is archived. If a page is vandalized, a user will revert changes back to the most recent version without the occurrence of vandalism.

When viewing an article, reader's don't often take perspective into account. On Wikipedia, the tone of every article must come from a neutral standpoint. Opinions are not allowed in the main namespace articles. Even simple opinions like "the results of this earthquake were devastating" are not allowed. This means that no article is in favour of or against any view the reader may have.

Not only is incorrect content removed, but also untrustworthy information, be it true or not. All information that is not obvious or common knowledge must be cited to remain on Wikipedia. Only citations from sources that are for the most part reliable are allowed. Any unreliable information is removed just like vandalism.

Another trait of Wikipedia that some people point out is that you don't know who edits the articles. Active users have registered accounts and, sure, there is some anonymity, but why is that bad? With all due respect, why does that matter who makes the edits? If it's a good edit, great, keep it. This edit cited a reliable source, so it would be out of line to delete it. If not, the edit gets reverted, no questions asked. Even if the one making bad edits is unregistered, Wikipedia keeps track of the IP addresses of each edit source, so excessive vandalism is easily preventable.

Despite all the efforts made to maintain Wikipedia's reliability, people still advise against the use of it for research purposes. In most cases, Wikipedia is actually more reliable than blogs and journalists' sites. every article is viewed by on average 10 - 50 active users a day. These users will collaborate with one another to make sure the information on that article is viable. Certain news sites, ones where anyone can sign up and contribute, have articles that only one person can edit; the author. The author is able to write whatever they want, and people think it of all thing is the truth, just because it was posted on a well-known news website.

I, personally, have heard people talk about all the bogus they see on news websites and networks. I trust these people's opinions because the news segment is talking about a field in which they are quite familiar. Even though they talk all about the nonsense that people post on the internet, or say on the news, not once have I ever heard them say that the information on Wikipedia is incorrect.

In conclusion, Wikipedia is a reliable source. Its articles are monitored and well maintained by many, and the information is accurate and trustworthy most of the time. This is why I believe Wikipedia should no longer be deemed unreliable as a source of information.

This essay was written by a proud ~~and slightly outraged~~ Wikipedian: Diriector Doc (talk)