To Wikipedia Or Not To Wikipedia

“Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for quick research. It is absolutely not appropriate as a source for research papers or other scholarly works.”

These were the words my first graduate-level professor used when replying to a question about using Wikipedia as a source. Her tone made it clear, she was not kidding around.

Many of my fellow students felt this was overly harsh and kind of laughed off her opinion. I can honestly say, I didn’t understand why she was so adamant.

Then something happened to change my perspective on Wikipedia. 

Last March, the New England Patriots signed free agent Darrelle Revis. Revis is the best cornerback in the National Football League. He’s so good, he can cover the best receiver with out help. Quarterbacks seldom throw in his direction...giving his part of the field the nickname “Revis Island” because he’s all alone out there.

Right after the signing, someone updated the Wikipedia page for the islands of Massachusetts to include Revis Island. It was funny, no question, but it illustrates what’s wrong with using Wikipedia as a source for serious research. Anyone can update, change, edit or modify Wikipedia's pages. There’s no authority responsible for its content. 

For serious research, you just can’t trust what you read on Wikipedia. If you must, use it as a starting point. Use it to get a general idea of what you are researching but don’t rely on it. Do use the citations in the reference section at the bottom of the article. These should be reliable, but like everything, double check.