Create a new version of paste:

This is a verbatim copy of an email I sent to a professor on behalf of a Wikipedian, in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. I thought it might be of benefit to others who find themselves in a similar situation.

==The Professor's Email==

A reminder that you were to have provided some of your intended sources in your paper; many of you have not done that. You must do so to ensure that you will actually be able to find the information you need to do your topic. A second reminder, to those of you who cited internet sites: some are reliable, some are not. Screen carefully. You can use appropriate internet sources, but YOU MUST USE AT LEAST 3 ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS (books/journal articles) to source/support your data. ''PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source: it is my understanding that anyone can put'' anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy. ''(Italics mine)''

==My Response==

Dear Prof. *Name removed*:

I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials.

I am contacting you because I was contacted by one of your students concerning an email you sent to one of your classes. In your email, you indicated to them that Wikipedia was not to be considered an authoritative source; I completely agree with you that Wikipedia, alone, should not be considered authoritative. However, I am sure that you would agree with me that first and foremost, encyclopedias aren't intended to be college-level academic sources, and second, that no source should be considered authoritative without a secondary source to verify it. Wikipedia is not intended as a stand-alone reference; it is imperative that information gleaned from Wikipedia be checked for accuracy, just as information gleaned from any other source. (I for one would not accept the authenticity of a given statement based on a single source; I expect my students to check their facts, regardless of where they originate.)

It is certainly none of my business whether you allow your students to cite Wikipedia, however, I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." There are tens of thousands of contributors to our site (far more than to a traditional encyclopedia), and every change to the site is viewed by multiple individuals to determine its accuracy and insure that it is appropriate for inclusion. Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. Studies conducted by independent (and credible) parties, including IBM ( http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/index.htm) verify that vandalism (deliberate insertion of inappropriate material) is generally corrected within five minutes, and that the accuracy level of Wikipedia approaches and often surpasses that of Brittanica.

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. However, I urge you to reconsider your views on Wikipedia, as there is a dedicated corps of volunteers who work very hard to maintain the accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia. It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.

Wikipedia is an excellent resource, one that can point your students in directions that they would not have otherwise considered. When used correctly (i.e., the information taken from the site is verified with a secondary source) Wikipedia is an invaluable and irreplaceable source. I hope that you will reconsider your view, and that if you find yourself so inclined, will join us in creating the greatest collection of knowledge known to man. Individuals like yourself--respected educators with advanced credentials--are an invaluable resource to Wikipedia, and I would be honored to see you join our ranks. Should you decide to do so, please drop by my discussion page and say hello.

Let me leave you with a quote from our founder, Jimmy Wales, which puts our mission into words with Jimmy's amazing ability for clarity:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

Yours,

Essjay