I Heart Wikipedia

I can't count the number of times I've heard students say "My teacher says that we shouldn't use wikipedia because it is not reliable." This frustrates me to no end. I love Wikipedia , and I think it is a great resource for students, especially when dealing with topics with which they are only vaguely familiar. The format is easy to follow, and when taken with a grain of salt, the information is helpful and most times reliable. I often explain to them that wikipedia has weaknesses not unlike all other information resources. One of the major reasons people distrust wikipedia is because the information it contains is edited by numerous contributors, sometimes annonymously. I say "What?!" In my humble opinion, that is what makes it so great. To have a topic expanded by people from varying backgrounds and disciplines adds to its credibility in my mind. Not only can people add to entries, they can also challenge faulty information. What other source can brag of timely (sometimes daily or even minute to minute) updates and editing? In graduate school I wrote a paper on the validity of wikipedia compared to that of other trusted information resources. You know what I found? You might want to sit down for this one.....When articles on the same topic taken from both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica were compared, researchers found an average of 3.86 errors per Wikipedia article, and 2.92 errors per Britannica article. Hmmmmm.....let's just chew on that one for a minute. Apparently, the overall integrity of Wikipedia has been found to be at least comparable to that of The Encyclopedia Britannica. And teachers still say that it is unreliable? For now, to satisfy teachers across the country, I will say that Wikipedia is at the very least a good starting point for students who are researching topics for school papers. And the next time a student chastizes you for using wikipedia to help them explore a topic, take the time to educate them on the usefulness of this wonderful tool.