A free online encyclopedia that has millions of articles in different languages couldn't be a bad thing for students - could it?
Wikipedia.org, a free online encyclopedia, has been a topic of discussion in the world of academia since its creation in 2001. One cause for controversy is the fact that the encyclopedia can be authored and edited by anyone.
The University has no official stance on the topic, leaving it open to interpretation by individual professors.
"It should never be anyone's sole source for information," said Philip Bernick, an assistant English professor. "[But] I think it's a really useful and important resource for students."
Wikipedia.org is self-regulating, meaning users can monitor the information on it, he said.
Allowing numerous people to have a say in a topic could cause confusion, Bernick said.
"On the other hand, eventually, [you can] gain a certain clarity of something."
The title came from "Wiki," meaning an application that anyone can add to or edit and "pedia" from encyclopedia. The concept was to provide a free and easy encyclopedia in multiple languages, including French, German and Chinese, according to the Web site.
It's understandable that some ASU professors would be wary of accepting Wikipedia.org as a source, said James Palazzolo, a rhetoric and composition graduate student.
"I think in its early stages there was hesitancy. Like any new tool, you learn about it," said Palazzolo, who is writing his thesis partially on Wikipedia.org and other similar technology.
Several studies have been conducted to compare Wikipedia.org's accuracy with Encyclopedia Britannica, a fee-based reference, Palazzolo added.
One such study, conducted in November by the science journal Nature, found the sources to be equally accurate .
"You can change those errors a lot quicker than you can republish the Britannica," Palazzolo said.
On the Wikipedia.org site, administrators posted an article on how to research with the tool. The site's greatest feature is its openness, according to the article. Its greatest weakness is also its openness, as it could allow vandalism.
Wikipedia.org has faults, but is still a strong resource, said Kat Walsh, a Wikipedia.org spokeswoman.
"We strongly encourage any user of Wikipedia.org to check the cited sources from an article and to use independent sources to verify and compare to what they read," Walsh said in an e-mail.
"For academic use, students should be citing [other sources], rather than encyclopedias," she added.
Anthony Yates, a computer systems engineering sophomore, said because of the mixed reaction to Wikipedia.org from professors, he rarely uses the Web site as a source.
"Anyone can change the information on it," Yates said. "For a paper - it's not a good source at all.
"I've had some professors who failed kids for using it [on papers]," Yates said.
Even if a professor bans the tool as a source, some students may find Wikipedia.org a useful starting point, said Ian Riggs, a political science senior.
"You have to take it with a grain of salt," Riggs said.
Reach the reporter at matthew.g.stone@asu.edu
