Is Wikipedia Really That Bad?

In the professional writing world, Wikipedia is slowly earning respect.

Not too long ago, magazines like Writers Digest would tell all its readers not to use the user-created/edited encyclopedia at all. Now, Wikipedia is hailed as a terrific launching point for writers. Start there, but don't ever cite it as a credible source... or so the thinking goes.

Most major publishers still refuse to allow Wikipedia to be cited in its books' sources. They contend that because just anyone can write and edit the content that the information presented is not reliable. If you read between the lines, the publisher is really saying that unless the contributor has a doctorate in the subject, their contributions are not to be trusted.

This form of thinking is thoroughly antiquated. Remember, this policy is set by companies that are increasingly losing profits because more and more people refuse to play their pathetic games. Self-publishing is increasingly becoming the standard mode of publication. Why?

Publishing houses can't keep up. On top of that, they keep the majority of the profits of a book for doing nothing more than laying it out and coordinating with the printers. When it comes to selling the book, well, that's pretty much all on you. Rare is the book that gets heavily marketed by a publisher. But that's a completely different argument.

Back to the Wikipedia credibility issue...
Let's face it: information is only as reliable as its source. More and more, the "experts" are being discredited. They are caught making stuff up, cutting corners, or just standing on their authority alone.

I once edited a book by a well-known doctor. When I pointed out that his book had absolutely no sources and that they were needed to make his book hold up to scrutiny, he scoffed and said he's written extensively on the subject. He was an authority so he didn't need to prove his sources. Well, the publisher stood up for me. He told the author/doctor that while he was justified in his belief, the fact was that he needed to provide his sources just like any other author. Begrudgingly, the doc complied. What we discovered was a whole slough of misquotes and misinterpretations.

This is a case in point. You can have all the experts in the world saying that their knowledge is the correct knowledge. Ultimately, it is up to you, the writer/editor, to probe the sources. This is Essay Composition 101, people!

Wikipedia will notify you if an article contains factual errors or unverified information. Sounds a lot like a scholarly journal, wouldn't you say? Check the entry for superscript in the running text, then scroll down and check the sources. If the source URLs contain .edu, .gov, or even (but tread lightly) .org, odds are it's a reliable source, no less credible than something you'll find in a refereed journal.

Sure, Wikipedia is rife with errors, but so is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Why do you think they print an annual "Additions and Corrections" edition?