Wikipedia, friend or foe?

I think we can all assume that you know what Wikipedia is? It describes itself as "a user-generated and user-edited resource that provides information on a vast array of topics. Its entries are not always complete and not always accurate”.

The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, an ex porn lord, describes Wikipedia as "a free encyclopedia of the highest quality, wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".

Clearly Wikipedia is a world wide phenomenon, and is now available in over 285 languages, but is this great encyclopedia of shared knowledge really all its cracked out to be?

Having a plethora of well meaning and not so well meaning contributors can lead to questionable sources as well as information.

I personally, am not a fan of using Wikipedia as a reference. Mainly because amongst my academic peers it is seen as something of a joke- how can anybody take me seriously if my information came from Wikipedia?

So, I conducted a little experiment to see how easy it was to add, change or delete information on Wikipedia.

My subject was nationally renowned author and poet, Robert Sullivan. I chose him because I know him personally and I thought his Wikipedia page could do with a bit of renovating.

At first it was a bit fiddly but I soon got the hang of it, all that was required was basic HTML knowledge and a login.

Because I have a conscience, I researched a few academic references to Robert on EBSCO host and set about inserting it into Wikipedia.

It was without a doubt the easiest task I could have done- easier than doing my washing, making my bed and even doing the dishes.

Worrying? I should think so- many people are now basing their sources of information and knowledge management on Wikipedia.

I mean, the site is set up relatively well and contributors are encouraged to reference every bit of information added, but I don’t think it should be people’s ONLY source of information.

Considering that anyone with an axe to grind and an ounce of writing ability can add false information on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, it’s a wonder why people think Wikipedia is the be all and end all of information.

I guess it’s because it’s just a little too convenient. Granted, I have used it many a time, but it is by all intents and purposes a starting point. I think that in this day and age we should never rest on our laurels.

As writers we should strive to deliver accurate and in depth information on a subject, it will not only make us much more credible, we will also be able to better convince our readers of the authenticity of that which we are describing.