This is really a note to students but I’m using the opportunity to make a point to my colleagues as well. There has been some discussion lately on the validity of Wikipedia as a source. Personally, I think much of the controversy is misguided because everyone should be able to figure out that Wiki …. Pedia is a kind of Encyclo … Pedia, and thus if you just treat it like an encyclopedia you should be OK.

First let me point you’all to some of the discussion going on.

PZ Myers at Pharyngula says very little but you can be sure there will be spirited and interesting discussion on his post … Crooked Timber and Wired have discussions as well. This topic has come up in a few other places, and I welcome anyone who has links to add them below in the comments section.

Here is what I think:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be treated that way. If you are a grade school student doing research on a topic, it is a valid source as long as you cite it. If you are doing any research at any higher level, Wikipedia is a very good place to get an overview of a topic and, typically, useful links and sources to find more. I believe it is impossible to tell exactly who wrote an entry or part of an entry, so therefore the text itself is not primary (even when it is) and can’t be used as such. The system could be improved if there could be occasional original work provided and not altered by the “keepers” and “contributors” to the project. But, it is an encyclopedia so we may not be able to expect that.

Wikipedia is probably a valid original source when what one is looking for is “prevailing opinion,” if it is properly cites as such. Think of it this way. If you look something up in Encarta, you are getting an encyclopedic overview of something. But if you look something up in the Dictionary of Anthropology (which is an encyclopedia) such as my definition of Biological Anthropology, then you are getting an authoritative (supposedly) description of a current concept or thing. The former is a place (mainly for students) to get oriented to a topic, the latter is a place for anyone doing research to get an opinion or summary that can be cited directly. I get the impression that the Wikipedia entries span these functions. However, again, without attribution it is difficult to see how it would fill this role.

In all cases the quality of coverage of a topic has to be assessed on a case by case basis. I have looked things up in Wikipedia and been floored at how horrible the entry is, but usually the entries are very good, as good as in any other encyclopedia. Actually, I never look things up in encyclopedias, but I find myself using Wikipedia as a source for stuff I’m not really that much into all the time.

What it comes down to is this: No source is a priori “good” or “bad.” Scholarship is scholarship. Wikipedia can be seen as an encapsulation of a certain stream (or set of streams) of current thought. (sorry about the pun…) It can be used for orientation and for breaking into a literature. The scholarship involves knowing what to look at and what to look for, how to cite it, and how to formulate an argument or description properly. And in scholarship, the devil is in the details of how you do it.