• “It has all of the information in one place.”
• “It’s easy.”
• “Allowing a group of people to edit makes the information even more accurate.”
• “Wikipedia has a system of checking for errors.”

In response to this, I’m still not convinced: 

• Wikipedia may appear to have a wealth of information and resources, but the distribution of information between topics is not equitable in terms of its depth or connection to outside research. 
• The information presented is purely informative, and not analytical in nature, which is to be expected from this type of source.  This is not a one-stop-shop:  it doesn’t allow for interpretation, response, and depth. 
• Although Wikipedia does have a system for editing out mis-information with its system of approved experts as editors, there is still a much greater probability for mis-information from a public forum than from a peer-reviewed publication.  Until someone removes them, the innacuracies are left for all to see, leaving the reader vulnerable.  Along these same lines is the probability that even though information may be technically accurate, it is incorrect in its spelling, context or connection to the other information on the site.  Anyone can post without noting a name or writing affiliation, and that means I am immediately cautious, especially in an academic context where I am responsible for accurately representing the facts.
• Bias may exist in terms of what information is included vs. what information is not included.  You may not be getting all of the puzzle pieces or, in the case of a highly debated topic, you may not be getting the specifics you need, and, instead, receive a watered-down version of the truth that everyone can live with.
• In the Guardian.co.uk article, “Can you Trust Wikipedia?” several published experts in their field were asked to review entries in their area of expertise, with unsatisfactory results.  They noted the following:
  • “It’s obvious that someone has taken care to make the entry factually accurate, even if the way it is written lacks clarity and doesn’t necessarily inspire confidence.”
  • “As a very, very broad-sweep description there are a few correct facts included, but every value judgment it makes is wrong.”

So, in the end, my response to students is this: 

• Use it if you must as a source for creating a preliminary understanding of your topic and to generate key words for your searches. 
• Verify the information you find as accurate by consulting published, scholarly sources. 
• Don’t include Wikipedia on your works cited page because it should not make the cut for what sources are cited in the actual written paper.  There should be far richer texts to find for this purpose.

• I am studying health and wellness.
• Because I want to find out how…health education is taught in schools and what sort of effort is really put into helping young children understand its importance.
• In order to understand what…this means for the future of America and the amount of obesity compared to healthy individuals in our society.
• In order to explain to you why…there is still hope for change in the health of American society.

Feedback:  What is your overall question? By “health education” do you mean nutrition education?  Will you focus on elementary school, middle school, or high school when you say “young children”?  Will you focus on childhood obesity?  I like that you’ve just focused on school education and its influence on young children.  What if, for example, you find that schools are teaching what they need to teach…where will you go from there?  Will you examine complications that come with following the nutrition education received in school (busy society and pre-made food, family habits, school cafeteria offering poor choices, tv, etc?)

This student then ended up changing topics and focusing on Autism, wanting to discover if vaccines were, indeed, linked to the onset of this disorder.  After a week of research, she had become overwhelmed by a topic that was legitimately in stasis, not knowing how to make sense of a large body of information with many opposing viewpoints. 

She also had become overwhelmed by the research itself, not knowing where to look for information and becoming discouraged that other possible causes of autism were not being discussed.  Contrary to what this student thought, however, the information was there but unaccessed.  Sometimes, it’s all in the re-search:  going back and looking again, expanding search resources, using new key words, and/or refining the original idea or research question. 

We brainstormed other possible key words:  pervasive developmental disorder, genetics and autism, gluten-free, possible causes of autism, autism spectrum disorders, etc.

We accessed databases offered by the school.  If you are lucky enough to have access, SIRS Researcher, Infotrac, and Ebsco are wonderful for their ability to categorize according to source type.  After 15 minutes, we were able to find 10 additional scholarly sources, newspaper articles, media files, and magazine articles. 

Ahh, the sweet success of re-search.