# Is Wikipedia always valid to cite to? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 12, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301 "2005-09-12T19:23:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_It_s_That_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/1 "2005-09-12T19:23:14Z")
I am only recently discovering Wikipedia, and find it to be a useful information source on a good many topics. However, I am concerned about its reputation as a valid source, particularly when offering citations, since just about anyone can add to the entries. I’ve noticed wrong information on there, similar to how the information on [IMDB.com](http://IMDB.com) (relating to movies) can also be submitted by anyone and is occasionally inaccurate. If this has been asked and answered before on the Dope, I apologize in advance. But in general, is Wikipedia an acceptable source to cite? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/2 "2005-09-12T19:25:41Z")
Two words: _it depends_. If you’re wanting to offer general concise explanatory information, it can be a wonderful source. If the topic is contentious, however, it’s a dreadful place to base your argument. There’s lots of people wanting to change the biography of George Bush, or the history of Israel, but there’s not many people wanting to go and alter the entry for ‘fluorescent light bulb’. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/3 "2005-09-12T19:29:20Z")
Yeah, when I’m referring to wikipedia here on the board, I generally start with an apology. 🙂 To add a little to what gorillaman said – when you have no other idea where to go to look for background information, wikipedia can be a great place to start. If you know that there’s all kinds of info and opinion about the topic on the web and are looking for an authorative source to cut through the clutter… don’t even bother with wikipedia would be my advice. ---
**Author:** ![Corii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Corii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corii)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/4 "2005-09-12T19:31:24Z")
Sometimes it helps to look at the discussion page for the specific subject to see how much it is contested amongst the contributors. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/5 "2005-09-12T19:34:56Z")
Any reference source (Web or printed) can contain errors. The nature of the Wikipedia means that: [ul] [li]On non-controversial, but important, topics, errors will be found by others and corrected[/li][li]On controversial topics, you can be presented with several viewpoints and sources to back them up.[/li][li]There will be more inconsistency in presentation than there is in a professionallly edited multi-author encyclopedia.[/li][li]You get good information on very minor, even arcane, stuff, provided there is a Wikipedia enthusiast who has gone to the trouble of posting an article.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/6 "2005-09-12T19:44:01Z")
> [@Big Bad Voodoo Lou](#): > > I’ve noticed wrong information on there, similar to how the information on [IMDB.com](http://IMDB.com) (relating to movies) can also be submitted by anyone and is occasionally inaccurate. Hmm. I wonder if Wikipedia has an entry for J-Bolt? 😉 As you note, **Lou** , Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. There are enough people checking the site regularly that undisguised vandalism is quickly caught and erased, but factual errors can creep in. I would not cite Wikipedia for a specific factual provision if I could help it, but the quality of a cite is ultimately up to the person asking for it. Of course, Wikipedia can be very useful in broad terms, and in that sense it might be a worthwhile cite, especially if you’ve got other backup. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_It_s_That_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/7 "2005-09-12T19:47:40Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Hmm. I wonder if Wikipedia has an entry for J-Bolt? 😉 Who or what is J-Bolt? That sounds vaguely familiar, but I have no idea from where. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/8 "2005-09-12T19:50:22Z")
I frequently cite Wikipedia if what I want is a concise discussion or a simple explanation of basic information on a scientific subject. Most of the time it’s pretty good. But if I need information on something more esoteric, I’ll usually look for a more detailed source. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/9 "2005-09-12T19:52:17Z")
I get the impression that it’s not closely edited. At least one sciwentific entry that I looked into I found to be in error. On the other hand, most of the information that I look up that I have reliable info on from elsewhere is accurate. The bottom line is that it’s a good quick resource, but watch your step. Heck, I could say the same about most references – hard copy or internet. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/10 "2005-09-12T20:22:34Z")
While I concur with **GorillaMan** that it depends, it has to be said that Wikipedia has an ethos of covering controversial subjects in an even-handed manner. And I think they do a pretty good job of it. Go have a look at any of the subjects he mentioned – I looked at the Israel one by way of example – and you’ll get a flavor for how this is accomplished. And by the way, Wikipedia has [posted](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections) an answer to the most common objections, such as the ones you raise. And for many non-controversial and obscure topics (Hundreds of Westrogothia, anyone?), Wikipedia is basically the only game in town, cite-wise. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/11 "2005-09-12T20:28:29Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I get the impression that it’s not closely edited. At least one sciwentific entry that I looked into I found to be in error. That’s the great thing - if you find an error, there’s no excuse for that error to remain, because you can correct it. It’s not _closely_ edited, it’s _widely_ edited. Yes, this has drawbacks…but to complain about errors, and to _only_ do that, is missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![CapnPitt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/edb3f5/32.png) [@CapnPitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CapnPitt)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/12 "2005-09-12T22:30:10Z")
It also depends if you care about who you’re getting your information from. If you want information from some yayhoo who can get an internet connection, then wikipedia is fine. If you want info from an expert in the field, well nothing beats a good ol’ book. That said, if you need to know about something quickly and it isn’t all that important that it be right, then wikipedia is dandy. I use it more often than I’d like to admit. ---
**Author:** ![DougC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/13 "2005-09-13T02:12:40Z")
- - - Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference by academics. The nature of its open anonymous contibution guarantees that everything on it is suspect. At best, it is a place to _begin_ research (and it can be helpful in that regard) but it is not where the effort should _end_. ~ ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/14 "2005-09-13T04:10:45Z")
**CapnPitt** : Books have no guarantee of accuracy, either. There are plenty of downright _wrong_ things published in books even in the most cut-and-dried technical fields, let alone when the topic is controversial. [This is a review of a book about the ISO standard for the C programming language that turned out to be a real pile of schildt.](http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html) Nothing controversial about it, but a book that was just plain _wrong_ got published by a fairly respectable publishing house even so. And don’t even get me started about all the books about UFO abductions and JFK conspiracy theories and the ones by [Kevin Trudeau](http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FTCActions/trudeau.html). My point being, it _always_ depends. You need to have enough intellect to know what you’re reading and to take information from more than one or two sources. > [@DougC](#): > > Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference by academics. The same can be said about a lot of books and other materials. Wikipedia is very much not special in this regard. > [@CalMeacham](#): > > The bottom line is that it’s a good quick resource, but watch your step. Heck, I could say the same about most references – hard copy or internet. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![DougC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/15 "2005-09-13T04:37:13Z")
> [@](#): > > …The same can be said about a lot of books and other materials. Wikipedia is very much not special in this regard… - - - Other works certainly can contain errors, but the fundamental difference with them is that the responsibility for the error can be ultimately tracked back to one single individual who stands to lose professionally by the damage to their reputation–namely, _loss of their paycheck_. There is no such cost associated with posting false info on Wikipedia, by anyone. ~ ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/16 "2005-09-13T05:19:18Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Two words: _it depends_. > > If you’re wanting to offer general concise explanatory information, it can be a wonderful source. If the topic is contentious, however, it’s a dreadful place to base your argument. There’s lots of people wanting to change the biography of George Bush, or the history of Israel, but there’s not many people wanting to go and alter the entry for ‘fluorescent light bulb’. You mean like this- [Wikipedia -George W. Bush](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) > [@](#): > > Religious beliefs and practices: > Bush is a lying sociopath who has conned people into believing that he is a Christian. He is not a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/17 "2005-09-13T06:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference by academics. Because as any academic will tell you, the only worthwhile cite is one to a work written by an academic. A paid academic. Seriously, Wikipedia is not perfect and certainly contains errors. But all reference works contain errors. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/18 "2005-09-13T09:03:08Z")
**astro** : Where does it say that? It isn’t in the page I’m viewing right now. **DougC** : Kevin Trudeau is making a buttload of money off of his books despite what the FDA thinks of him. His paycheck is in no way related to the veracity of his claims, and neither is his reputation among the people who actually matter in his life. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/19 "2005-09-13T10:46:05Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > **astro** : Where does it say that? It isn’t in the page I’m viewing right now. It’s been changed on the current - but for any article, you can look at the history and see what changes have been made. So, for example, I can look at the 9:43 and 9:47 changes for 9/13 and see what was changed and how. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301/20 "2005-09-13T11:13:04Z")
There are usually sources cited at the bottom of each article if its written to a well enough standard, you could check and cite them instead 🙂 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-always-valid-to-cite-to/321301.md?page=2)