If you’ve never been to Wikipedia, either you’ve been in a coma for three or so years, or you spend as much time on the web as you do putting on your shoes everyday. What began as a user generated encyclopedic community with high hopes of becoming a trusted resource has now become arguably more pervasive than any offline general research tool. From the Kyoto Protocol to “Keyboard Cat,” by now Wikipedia probably contains enough “knowledge” on millions of different topics to clog up the internet for good (or at least most of our brains).

However, one problem some have always had with it is the fact that the information it contains is in fact, all user generated. This isn’t necessarily a major issue for the casual browser, trying to figure out what “Rickrolling” is, but when members of the mass media make like bloggers and reference Wikipedia, things get a little more precarious.

As pointed out by Mediaite in the previous link, last weekend’s New York Times Magazine contained a story about the comedic Elliot family, which made reference to information taken from Raymond Knight’s Wikipedia page. The Times editor wasn’t using the information as fact, just pointing out that the statement had been made by a Wikipedia user. But one natural question is – would it be appropriate if the Times or any reputable traditional media outlet used Wikipedia for fact gathering without necessarily quoting it?

It’s a legitimate concern. I know I’ve gone to Wikipedia for information more times than I can count, and journalists are people too, right? So who’s to say they don’t have a tendency to do the same?

The large majority of information on Wikipedia is accurate, but as it is dependent upon human beings, it can’t all be 100% accurate at all times.

For me, this isn’t exactly rocket science. If journalists want to use Wikipedia as a preliminary resource for fact gathering, I say go for it. BUT, if they choose to use any of the facts gathered therefrom, they should also plan on independently verifying those facts with a more concrete source (have I blown your mind yet?). It’s really not wholly different from quoting a certain individual in relating facts. Really, that’s basically what you’re doing when you choose to take information from Wikipedia, since that information has been deposited there by other individuals like yourself. Double check it with something or someone that we all acknowledge to be an absolutely trustworthy source (or as close to it as humanly possible), and you’re good.

However, another question (that was actually raised by Mediaite) is – if quoting Wikipedia, should the editor instead be quoting the Wikipedia user who deposited the information there?

Personally, I agree with Mediaite – if quoting Wikipedia becomes standard journalistic practice, the user who submitted the information should get the credit. Wikipedia as a whole is a community, but if each users contributions are trackable, then the only reason not to give them the credit is simply because Wikipedia is a more recognizable name, which is understandable but probably unnecessary.

Of course, on the accuracy front, it may be patently obvious that I freely embrace new media and new platforms. So I’m coming at it with certain proclivities that color my perspective. You may feel differently. If so, I’d love to hear from you. What other considerations should be discussed in relation to using Wikipedia as a source? Is it as easy as I feel it is? Should my perspective change based on the circumstances of each situation? Feel free to comment and let me know!

Oh, and by the way, I hope you realized that my headline was made up.

I’m actually only 9’10″ tall [insert smiley face with teeth].