Everyone I know has an opinion about Wikipedia. Some say it is the best resource on the web, a true collaboration of millions of participants around the world. Others say it is chock full of half truths and myths. Some scholars laud its potential, while some comedians make jokes about it.
When I am searching the web, I play a game called Betterpedia. I don't go to the Wikipedia entry right away. I keep going down the hits to see if there is something better in terms of content and source.
What is a better source? What is better content? It depends on the question at hand. I look for certain identifying qualities in the search engine snippet. A .gov, .org, or .edu URL that relates directly to the topic at hand. I prefer Pubmed or the Mayo Clinic if it is a health question. I try to avoid .coms if I am looking for scholarly content, but it depends on the rest of the snippet whether this might just be a great source. I ask myself, who would be the expert in this situation? Then I ask, what is better content? Does the description of the page address my question?
Notice that we started out talking about the web at large, not library databases, which are often part of the invisible web. I may start with a search in Google but end up linking over to library databases as I discover that my answer is better found there. The research process should always be a both/and: library databases AND the web. The more complete your literature and media search, the better your understanding of the topic and your literature review.
I love it when I can play Betterpedia and find the best sources: good content, reliable source. If I do go back to Wikipedia, I don't feel that I have lost. I know that there was a mostly sincere effort behind the creation of the content. I look for my answer on the page then zoom down to the sources of the content. I go to those sources as well to check out and verify that there isn't a bias or misinformation in the content. Because I have seen misinformation before in Wikipedia entries, I know that this process is necessary.
This verification process is important. Whether or not you play Betterpedia,when you search the web you should always be thinking of verification. How can you prove that what you are reading is factual or at least reasonable? Sometimes you can check other sources on the web, other times you can verify using print sources. Although we may tend to think of web sources as current and thorough, many of us have had many experiences of discovering the opposite. Being a great researcher means this verification process is thorough and consistent. Always verify and evaluate your sources. Please note that library database content are always reliable good content. The content is carefully vetted for research purposes.
Would I cite a Wikipedia entry for a research journal article? I wouldn't cite Wikipedia unless it seemed absolutely necessary. Just as we encourage students to go to the original source, I would go to the originally cited content in the references and use that for my quote or paraphrase. I think citing Wikipedia sends a message to the reader that I haven't done a thorough literature and media search, that I have just selected the easiest source to find. Others may have other opinions about how Wikipedia entries are perceived.
Playing Betterpedia makes the research process more fun. It challenges me to see what else is out there. I always learn something in the process. I don't hear many people talk about research as fun but it can be!
