Saw a news story the other day saying that Middlebury college has banned Wikipedia citations in papers submitted by students. One professor said that the reason is that Wikipedia entries may not have been “fully vetted.” The NY Times article seems to try to frame this as a New-Media-Vs-Old-Media battle, but Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales agrees that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited,because no encyclopedia should ever be cited in a research paper. Makes sense to me.

Anyone can add to Wikipedia, which I consider one of its strengths. Someone begins by adding information to a subject. Others are then free to mold that information as closely as possible to the truth. Experts often weigh in with factual information that is orders of magnitude more detailed and accurate than any publishing fact-checker could achieve.

Wikipedia is Open Source for facts. Everything’s laid out there to be debated. It doesn’t guarantee the information’s accuracy, but it does guarantee exposure to debate that will eventually lead it to accuracy.

I also love that Wikipedia’s entries are constantly evolving. Traditional encyclopedias are frequently out of date as soon as they are printed. Wikipedia is updated constantly.

Our understanding of things evolves as well. A description of electricity from the early 1900’s would look far different than today’s. The same with nuclear theory. Our perspective on historical events changes over time as well. As the saying goes, winners write the history books.

The truth on any matter often varies upon whom you ask. Wikipedia allows any of us to add our knowledge of a topic up for debate – a most democratic means of soliciting truth. The more eyes that can review information for accuracy, the more accurate that information can become.