Running Header: BENEFITS OF WIKIPEDIA 1

Benefits of Wikipedia

James D Bischof

Park University
BENEFITS OF WIKIPEDIA 2

Benefits of Wikipedia

When it comes to the topic of Wikipedia, most of us will readily agree that it can be a

good, and reliable source of information. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the

question of open and free editing of any user. Whereas some are convinced that this taints all the

information on the page, others maintain that it broadens knowledge on any given subject. I

personally fall on the side of Wikipedia can be an invaluable source of information, especially

for students of higher education.

According to Jason Wolverton, Launched Jan. 15, 2001, it is already the ninth most

popular Web site in the United States, according to Alexa Internet, a company that monitors Web

traffic (Wolverton, 2007). I understand and will be the first to admit that a websites popularity

is not a viable statistic on the validity of information on that site. I am sure there are a bunch of

pornography websites that are very popular, but I would not look to them as a source of

information. But, besides the popularity of this website, I will be informing you of the accuracy

and validity Wikipedia.

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study

comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopedia Britannica. The researchers

found that the number of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements in each reference

work was not so different Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of

Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is completely without

merit. (Woods, Thoeny) We all know Britannica Encyclopedia to be the go to source of

information from when we were kids. At least those of us that were kids before the internet was a

common resource. And just as a point to show the validity of Wikipedia I went ahead and the

math on the difference of accuracy. 27.3% difference in the accuracy of a trusted encyclopedia
BENEFITS OF WIKIPEDIA 3

and a website that has been deemed unreliable and not a citable source by most higher education

establishments.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that

Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the

Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer

Institute. (Wolchover, 2011) I bring this quote of a study up because for me it is very eye

opening. What profession can you think of that has got to be more precise and complicated than

the study of cancer. I know this is not the be all end all of how accurate Wikipedia is because this

is a very small sample size of all that the website has to offer.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly, better than 95 percent correct." Riess

being Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at John Hopkins University. This quote

stems from him being asked by Lifes Little Mysteries, doing an independent study, to review

the Wikipedia entry on dark matter. I asked earlier what can be more complicated and precise

as the study of cancer. I think I found it with this dark matter entry. With it being better than

ninety-five percent accurate even I was impressed and I am on the side in defense of Wikipedia.

To this point I have been proving the point that Wikipedia can be a viable source for

academic studies. Specifically, on professional fields such as oncology, and astrophysics. Lifes

Little Mysteries, the independent study that approached Adam Riess about the dark matter page

also asked a few other people. This time they asked Nate Donmoyer, the drummer of Passion

Pit an indie pop band, to review the Wikipedia page on his band. Donmoyer found ten factual

errors on this page, from subtle to significant. Some of it appeared to be edited by rival

companies and organizations in search of publicity. "It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I
BENEFITS OF WIKIPEDIA 4

don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."

(Wolchover, 2011)

That is just the opinion of one person who also happens to be a member of the band

whose page had significant mistakes on it. But, it also the main arguing point to the side that

opposes Wikipedia being used in citing on scholarly papers. It is without a doubt a hindrance to

allow anyone access to edit any given page on the website. Not because of the inaccuracy that

comes of it, but the perception of the possibility of inaccuracy. I have cited only a few studies I

have found on the accuracy and validity of this website. Almost all the studies I found that had

significant inaccuracies came on pages that were not academic in nature. Bands, movies, people,

celebrities, anything that has rumors or can be interpreted in different ways are what I have

found to be the main culprits.

There are a couple things everyone can do to see if the article they are reading is

something they would like to cite in their paper. Look for a slant. If the vernacular or tone of the

article seems to be leaning towards one side of the argument, more than likely the author has a

bias on the subject and did not present all the facts of the case. Check the source. Almost all wiki

pages have sources at the bottom. Do not just trust the source, check the for accuracy and

relevance. Look who is talking. Look up the author and see if they happen to be an expert in the

field they are providing input on. All these helpful hints can be taught and applied to scholarly

writing. By doing this we make one of the most valuable resources on the internet today a viable

option for students everywhere. Arent students lives complicated enough without taking away

resources because of mights and possibilities?

BENEFITS OF WIKIPEDIA 5

References

Wolverton, J. (2007, January 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard.

http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141

Woods, W. Thoeny, P. Is Wikipedia Reliable

http://www.dummies.com/education/internet-basics/is-wikipedia-reliable/

Wolchover, N. 2011, How accurate is Wikipedia

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html