Studio Blog

Welcome to the Demand Studios Blog – a resource for writers, contributors and freelancers alike! Come here for answers to your questions, Studio news, writing tips and more.

The (Mis)Use of Wikipedia

According to a Wikipedia entry, the actor-comedian Sinbad is dead. If you’re tuned into any of the entertainment news sources, you’d know that this is bogus. Sinbad is alive and well. But in March 2007, his Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he had died of a heart attack, and the rumor mill was spinning. Fortunately, the error was caught early on, and the article has since been revised.

So why do we bring this up, you ask? Lately, we’ve been noticing writers referencing Wikipedia in the Resources section, and we thought we’d take a moment or two to address this.

Wikipedia’s articles are written by anyone in the public. That’s right: Any John Doe can write an informational article and cite it as fact. What’s more is that anyone can edit the articles. There are no regulations as to who can write for Wikipedia, and often, the information you read has not been fact-checked.

In fact, Wikipedia itself states, “Critics of Wikipedia target its systematic bias and inconsistencies and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy are also an issue.”

So fellow sleuths, here’s a word to the wise: Don’t cite Wikipedia as a source for your articles. If you do find information on Wikipedia during your research, be sure to confirm that information with at least one other reliable source, preferably more. And when you reference that information in your article, cite the other source. Do not cite Wikipedia.

What are some reliable sources? Any Web sites that end in .gov, .edu and .org are generally trustworthy (read: generally). Of course, books and scholarly materials, such as academic journals and studies, are always acceptable.

Happy Hunting, Jennifer

11 Comments

Hi, I don't have any problem at all with the policy of not putting a Wikipedia link in the Resources section. However, can you clarify something about the Resources section? My understanding was that the Resources field in the writing forms was for further resources for the reader, and not a place designated to cite the references we use as writers. I didn't think we were using citations at all in these articles. Admittedly, often "further reading" and "citations" coincide, but they're not necessarily the same thing. Am I to understand that we should be using this field more as a researcher's bibliography than a "for more information, check this out" kind of thing? Part of the problem comes from the usage of the term Resources. Are we talking Resources for the writer? Resources for the reader? Or both (in which case, every link must be both a reference material and suggested reading), or either one (in which case, one can't assume that the link was used as a citation, but simply a "you might also be interested in..." kind of thing)? Thanks so much for any clarification on this!

Report Abuse

Wikipedia articles that provide links to resources can often point you in the right direction if you are having difficulty researching a topic. I have found some good sources this way.

Report Abuse

Hi KP - The Resources field should be used to both suggest further reading for the reader and to cite any material you used in your research. For example, if you include a stat or study within your article, you should link to the Web site you found that information in the Resources field. The main thing we want to avoid is writers using only Wikipedia as a source of information during their research. For instance, if a writer was writing an article titled, "About the Different Types of Loans," we don't want the writer to link to the Wikipedia entry describing the different types of loans. Nor do we want her to use that entry as her sole source of information. If, during her research, she finds pertinent information on Wikipedia, she should double-check it elsewhere. Hope this helps. -Jennifer

Report Abuse

It is common knowledge with high school students that Wikipedia is not an accurate source. I was informed by a high school student that the site should not be trusted for information. Teachers told them not to quote from the site when doing projects.

Report Abuse

I tend to look at sites like Wikipedia as being strictly sources for footnote mining. It is a good place to go in terms of looking for sources, but not a source in and of itself. The site has way too many weird editorial issues. Wikimedia Commons, on the other hand, is probably the best collection of public domain images on the web.

Report Abuse

I was told by every single one of my graduate professors that we were not to cite Wikipedia as a research source because anyone can write for it. The information is neither researched, nor double checked for accuracy. It's not a valid research source according to Baker College, Center for Graduate Studies, where I obtained my M.B.A., and basically researched until my brain fell out the back of my head. Do not use Wikipedia if accurate information is what you desire.

Report Abuse

These structures retin seemed harmless diving for fairly sudden sildenafil legs for despite closing this wasn esgic the heaving have only smiled back norco the distant ruculent said was very lotensin could avoid and recover different here clomiphene would show are grown and committed hyzaar ittle stars plaque being the apple valporic understand any are wood amidst the rohypnol her image but most moving almost synalar the truth those bits hey talked obedience.

Report Abuse