Ellington

Research papers can seem like second nature to college students. At Baker University, the papers often begin for freshmen in the LA classes. With the number of papers Baker students write, professors have stressed the importance to students of knowing how to spot unreliable sources. Though popular, Wikipedia is one such source.

How the site works

Wikipedia's Web site boasts it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Sophomore Sarah Jones explained how the site works.

"It's a peer-reviewed Web site - people can just get on and edit any information about any topic," Jones said.

For this reason, professors do not consider Wikipedia a trustworthy source for research, but that's not to say the site doesn't have other merits.

Knowledge-sharing forum

Associate Professor of English Tracy Floreani said the site is a good forum for sharing information.

"It's a very democratic way to show your amateur expertise," Floreani said. "It's clear when you look at the Internet that people really want to show what they know." Assistant Professor of Mass Media and Communication Joe Watson said the site has its benefits.

"I think if you just want general information on basic topics ... (it) can provide ... worthwhile information," he said.

Reliable experts?

However, the same feature that has earned the site popularity has also given the site the reputation of an "unreliable source."

"I know you can write something and submit it, and it goes through some sort of screening process ...," Floreani said, "but I don't think the content is edited by experts in the field. That's why it's not good for an academic source. Anybody can put anything they want on there."

Watson said scandals have arisen in the past with people claiming expertise they did not have.

"Many have sung its praises that (peer editing)'s why it's so fantastic. ... It allows anybody who has information on a topic to submit it," Watson said. "The problem with that is people can be wrong. If anybody can upload information, what are their credentials? What makes them an expert on a particular topic?

"There's also the great example of Stephen Colbert, who got his viewers to put up information about his credentials and change the definition of what bears are."

Wikipedia users with names like "Typing Monkey" and "Crapload" among others, have edited both the Colbert page and the entry on bears more than a thousand times.

Going beyond the encyclopedia

Professors have also stressed students should not base research papers on encyclopedias.

"I think also that some professors feel that college students should be going beyond just encyclopedias, and so they have a problem with (Wikipedia) just based on the fact that it's an encyclopedia so it's not in depth," Floreani said.

While Floreani said only a few students have used Wikipedia as a source in her classes, Watson said he has received several papers with the site used as the main source of research.

"The example that I always give ... especially for upper-level college courses - would you write an entire paper based on what you get out of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?" Watson said. "I mean, of course you wouldn't. That's what you do when you are in high school. So if you wouldn't write an entire paper based on Encyclopaedia Britannica, why would you do it on Wikipedia? It's the same thing. It's an online encyclopedia, and it's not meant to be a primary research source."

Using the technology astutely

Wikipedia is not the only unreliable Web site college students use. The Internet is full of them. Watson advises students make the effort to research authors before using their work.

"I think what (students have) got to do is ask themselves, 'Who is this person?' If you don't see an author for the information, that's the first sign that you might have trouble," Watson said. "You need to know who's provided the information so that you can look up that person's credentials."

While most professors agree the Internet is a beneficial resource and a key tool in education, it is a tool that is frequently abused.

"The problem, I think, comes when students sit down and they search a topic on Google and whatever the first five hits are, that's what they base their paper on," he said. "I think the Internet is a great thing; it gives you access to resources that you would otherwise not be able to have. But just because you can search it, doesn't mean you don't have to work at it."

January 15, 2001An offshoot of the Nupedia free encyclopedia, Wikipedia, was launched, completing only 20 articles during that year. Today, thousands of new articles are created every day.

December 12, 2005USA Today discredited the online encyclopedia after a co-worker prank implicated a journalist in the assassination of a U.S. president. Wikipedia has since stopped allowing anonymous users to edit articles

February 10, 2006Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan claimed responsibility for overseeing the "favorable editing" made to the politician's Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia members were able to track the edits back to Meehan's offices within hours.

November 17, 2006 The Chinese government changed its long-standing stance against Wikipedia, which had been filtered by the government.

March 20, 2007The Oxford English Dictionary recognized "Wiki" as an English word.