# When did Wikipedia become the defacto reference source website? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 27, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307 "2005-12-27T02:22:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Blonde\_Bomber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@The\_Blonde\_Bomber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Blonde_Bomber)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/1 "2005-12-27T02:22:12Z")
On this and other boards, an increasing number of posters cite Wikipedia as their reference source. Isn’t this free “encyclopedia” editable by anyone? As a quick and dirty reference point, I guess it gets you started, but using it as a cite reference? That seems to take a lot for granted. Is there no better single source (and free) repository provided out there that doesn’t allow for individual (and relatively anonymous) edits? TBB ---
**Author:** ![Sequent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Sequent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sequent)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/2 "2005-12-27T02:27:12Z")
It’s free and editable by anybody, or was until just recently, anyway. Write your own cite, make your point on the SDMB, then simply link to your own brilliance. What could be better? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/3 "2005-12-27T02:32:57Z")
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:33.25 pm (EST). Didn’t you get the memo? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/4 "2005-12-27T02:36:02Z")
It hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/5 "2005-12-27T02:44:36Z")
This comes up all the time. The brief answers are: It indeed makes a good starting point. Some of the articles are quite well written and quite well researched. Others are suspect, poorly done, and not up to state of the art in that field. Using it as a reliable cite is dangerous. While a person can edit the info, it will rather quickly be erased if you’re not doing it as a member. And even then it’s subject to further editing. I like it better than I use to, now that I understand what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/6 "2005-12-27T02:46:15Z")
Wikipedia has become the default because it is easy and it covers a lot of topics, much as Google has become the search engine (and even the word for internet searching) for many people. That it covers so many topics in depth is likely one of the reasons so many people use it. Also, it’s typically written in everyday language. I can search [PubMed](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html) and find articles - but a lot of times they will be so scientifically based (as they should be) that I don’t understand, not when I’m looking for general information on a topic. Wikipedia is not perfect - but I use it as a starting point sometimes when I’m at the reference desk. For example, towards the end of the semester, I had a student beginning to work on a paper about a specific artist, but the student didn’t know much about the artist initially - and for most of our art encyclopedias, you need to know the nationality of the artist to even get to the right encyclopedia. So I found the artist in Wikipedia, got the nationality and then went to the print encyclopedias. When I do this, I explain to the student why I used it - and why I wouldn’t use it for a research paper. And recently [this](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html) article in _Nature_ compared the Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia and found that there aren’t that many differences between the two as far as accuracy. Another single source? Well, there’s the [Columbia Encyclopedia](http://www.bartleby.com/65/) online. But compare these two entries for Nunavut: [Columbia Encyclopedia](http://www.bartleby.com/65/nu/Nunavut.html) [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut) Not only is the Wikipedia entry more detailed, the population information is more current (2004 compared to 1996), further down the page it’s broken down into the population of the 10 largest municipalities. There are also resources like [Librarians’ Index to the Internet](http://www.lii.org) (which consists of links to information, not entries about specific topics) and [the Internet Public Library](http://www.ipl.org) - which, again, is a collection of links. As an answer, this is more anecdotal than factual - and I think that’s what you’re more likely to get with this question. The exception is the part about another site -off the top of my head, these are the alternatives I can think of . ---
**Author:** ![Waterman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Waterman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waterman)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/7 "2005-12-27T02:58:33Z")
Call me old school, but what you find on Wikipedia is, like most other information available on the internet, subject to the whims and desires of the poster. There is no peer review and thus no reliability as to what is posted. Unfortunately, every lazy searcher using Wikipedia or even Google, finds something on their particular subject and just assumes it is correct and puts it out for everyone to see. I basically take anything found on the internet as a “possibility” and do not use it unless it can be substantiated by another source (usually printed). There is absolutely no control over anyone with an agenda or a burning point to prove to just go ahead and post absolute gabarge. Call me skeptical but I have little faith in most so-called “information” that is posted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/8 "2005-12-27T02:59:59Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > October 23rd, 2005 at 8:33.25 pm (EST). Didn’t you get the memo? Actually Dec. 14 🙂 [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47906.html](http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47906.html) > [@](#): > > Lately the skeptics have had a field day. In a Nov. 29 USA Today op-ed piece, John Seigenthaler, a former editorial director at the newspaper, blasted Wikipedia for permitting an anonymous user to write – incorrectly – that the journalist had been involved in the Kennedy assassination. Cybersleuths quickly cornered the culprit, who apologized to Seigenthaler, but the incident left many people with the impression Wikipedia is riddled with factual errors and partisan rants. > > Not so. At least, not when it comes to science. A study published Dec. 14 by the journal Nature found that in a random sample of 42 science entries, Wikipedia had an average of just one more inaccuracy per entry than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Nature also polled more than 1,000 scientists who have published papers in Nature’s prestigious pages and found that 17 percent consulted Wikipedia on a weekly basis. > > Plenty of Cooks > There’s no question that Wikipedia entries on politically charged topics such as abortion, evolution, and almost anything related to the Islamic faith reflect the efforts of a great many cooks. The resulting articles are often conscientiously bland and exhaustively footnoted. But draw back the curtain on how each article is actually produced, and you’ll find a reassuring competition for accuracy, as well as a surprisingly efficient mechanism for establishing which writers have the best information. > > While any user can theoretically change anything, the site doesn’t run completely wild. Volunteer administrators mediate debates and require contributors to provide external sources on contentious assertions. Paragraphs that draw excessive debate may be temporarily removed to special “discussion” areas, where opposing contributors negotiate and hammer out paragraphs in ways that will satisfy both sides. > > The process inevitably turns up a wealth of interesting background material, if not definitive conclusions. Because of the combative, quasi-democratic vetting and editing process, the quality of the entries actually improves when the topics are controversial and the readership is broad. Opposing sides fight to ferret out inconsistencies on the other side, as reputations are built up from scratch on the site. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/9 "2005-12-27T03:15:10Z")
> [@Waterman](#): > > Call me old school, but what you find on Wikipedia is, like most other information available on the internet, subject to the whims and desires of the poster. There is no peer review and thus no reliability as to what is posted. Unfortunately, every lazy searcher using Wikipedia or even Google, finds something on their particular subject and just assumes it is correct and puts it out for everyone to see. I basically take anything found on the internet as a “possibility” and do not use it unless it can be substantiated by another source (usually printed). There is absolutely no control over anyone with an agenda or a burning point to prove to just go ahead and post absolute gabarge. > Call me skeptical but I have little faith in most so-called “information” that is posted. I like wiki, but even if you don’t trust it, it’s a great starting point. Many of the well written articles (and there are LOTS) have links to original source material that you’d have trouble location yourself. Just to give you one reason I use it a lot here is that it has the best source of election results (going back decades) of any website I’ve ever found. There are many other categories of information like that to be found on wiki. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/10 "2005-12-27T03:17:22Z")
> [@Waterman](#): > > I basically take anything found on the internet as a “possibility” and do not use it unless it can be substantiated by another source (usually printed). There is no short supply of quackery & misinformation in print. It all depends on where any cited work gets its source material. ---
**Author:** ![Waterman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Waterman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waterman)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/11 "2005-12-27T05:41:19Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > There is no short supply of quackery & misinformation in print. It all depends on where any cited work gets its source material. Ignoring articles dealing with politics and opinions, I would qualify my earlier statement to those printed sources that are peer reviewed or have stood the test of time with regard to validity. My professional endeavors are in the scientific realm and my experience is that a lot of writers on the internet like to “toot their horn” on scientific material (or sell temselves or a product) rather than promote the advancement of knowledge. One of the great shortcomings of the internet (and many on this board) is using anonymity to avoid fact in favor of promotion of self, ideals, or occupation. Don’t get me wrong, much useful information is exchanged but there is also a large amount of misinformation and the uninformed are left out there on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/12 "2005-12-27T09:17:51Z")
Ease of use is high up there. As a rule of thumb encycylopedias in general are considered too general to be of use in a highly specialized debate about anything, but they certainly are good for confirming or reasserting more generalized points. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/13 "2005-12-27T21:59:40Z")
Wikipedia should be the first stop in topical research, not the last. Those \> 1,000,000 external links are a gold mine that put DMOZ to shame. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/14 "2005-12-27T22:45:18Z")
I use Wiki as a clearinghouse for sources, or a guide as to where to look further. It’s not a final source in itself. It’s useful because it’s kind of like an annotated Google. Also Britannica’s hella spensive. Even so, as a factchecker I’ve come across several innacuracies in Britannica, but people DO tend to approach Britannica as a final source. At least Wiki is relatively transparent in its limitations. That is, if you know how it works; it’s true that too many people presume it’s put forth as being as authoritative as Britannica. As long as you use it for its strengths and not its weaknesses, it has great value. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/15 "2005-12-27T23:33:36Z")
I think of Wikipedia as being like the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. The book within the novel, that is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/16 "2005-12-27T23:43:31Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I think of Wikipedia as being like the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. The book within the novel, that is. I didn’t read “Hitchhiker”, so I guess I’ll look that up in wikipedia to see what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/17 "2005-12-28T05:41:18Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > October 23rd, 2005 at 8:33.25 pm (EST). Didn’t you get the memo? Wikicite? 😛 I tell my friends that Wikipedia is an excellent resource, but it’s not so useful as an actual _source_ for academic purposes. That said, in many cases, a Wiki article will be more or less accurate because if someone puts something in wrong, someone else will correct it (assuming it’s something relatively well known, anyhow). There’s a [Penny Arcade](http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16) comic from a few weeks ago showing an example of what can go wrong on a Wiki article, but if someone keeps doing this kind of thing, they can be banned from editing (either you create an account and log on, or they just track your IP). That’s not to say a banned person can’t just move to another computer and repeat, but it’s an imperfect system. Wiki’s just a convenient place to look for information on, and the best Wiki articles will cite their own sources too. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/18 "2005-12-28T07:15:22Z")
Two and a half years ago I was a very active contributor and editor on Wiki (less so now that I’m actually doing work at my new job, but anyway…). I remember one incident where a class of university students in Hong Kong posted about 30 new topics in the space of an hour on various landmarks in Hong Kong, as part of their university course. Within minutes the text was cleaned up (the English wasn’t perfect) and edited by both me and half a dozen others (being in HK at the time I was able to edit for factual accuracy, and I wasn’t alone). It was quite startling to watch. And that as I said was 2 and a half years ago when there were far fewer contributors and editors - I received an e-mail at one stage asking me to vote on some change to Wiki, and I was asked on the basis that I was one of the top 2000 editors of the content. No way does Britannia have 2000 editors. I have watched over time some of the entries I posted become extremely detailed and updated. My own anecdotal experience is that its very efficient and accurate. ---
**Author:** ![drbuzz0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@drbuzz0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drbuzz0)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-wikipedia-become-the-defacto-reference-source-website/337307/19 "2005-12-28T09:51:36Z")
I really like Wiki a lot. I would never trust it for any serious research, like something going into a term paper, but what’s great about it is it has articles about stuff you’d never find in a real enclyclopedia, such as pop culture stuff, internet jokes. Where else could you find a definative refrence that gives you a concise summary of what “Homestar Runner” or “All your base are belong to us” or “L337” or “Gizzoogle” means? Also, the amount of stuff is huge. Most regular refrences stick to major facts, events, news: such as historical events, major scientific discoveries, world leaders. Few encyclopedias or refrences would bother having an article for every major peer-to-peer client or for different extensions of SIP protocol or for information on George W. Bush’s terrier or numerous historical footnotes. I could continue… As far as stuff where you just ask yourself “what the hell is that thing” It’s usually in wiki. A lot easier than googling it and wading through various sites until you find one that gives an upfront definition outright.