Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Opinion

To the Editor:

Poetry & Art

Classified Ads

Back Issues

Blogs

The Validity of Wikipedia

Rick Casillas
The Commuter

Sunday, February 1, 2009

I’ve noticed a hate/love relationship brewing between Wikipedia and the slew of teachers I’ve known since starting college. Many seem to mock its credentials, as it has become common knowledge that it’s open sourced, but they still seem to refer to it often enough that it’s apparent they use it in their everyday lives themselves. Talking to other students, I get the impression we all seem to use it to some extent; either brushing up on the basic facts of a topic or following external links to find something more impressive to sate the thirst of our tradition-mired instructors.

The problem is, of course, that anyone can edit it, which means that at any moment, someone could be altering the biography of Janis Joplin to say that she ate cats and we, being the mindless drones that we are, will read it, shrug our shoulders, and accept it at face value. If you use a little discretion and common sense however, I think it’s a completely valid source.

I have a big issue with blindly following big titles. Just because someone is a doctor doesn’t mean you have to do what they tell you to; a professor isn’t necessarily any smarter than any other Joe on the street. I think it’s pure intellectual snobbery to eliminate Wikipedia, essentially acting as the voice of the people on the basis that commoners can add to its articles. If anything, I would think some of Wikipedia’s material contains less bias, as it passes under the prejudicial eye of innumerable people who knead and beat it into its least offensive form; as opposed to a couple of historians or scientists and their editors.

Comment

Commenting is closed for this article.