Wikipedia is often touted as a source for information on just about anything.  And it's true… there's at least a brief mention of almost anything you could possibly think of at the site.  Since the online encyclopedia is created and edited by anyone who wants to lend a hand, even the most obscure tastes and topics get covered eventually.

It's the system of user-generated content that makes Wikipedia great.  But it's also the thing that opens Wikipedia up for abuse and inaccurate information.  If I wanted to, I could go create a page on an historical event.  If I didn't know the exact dates or the exact names I could fudge them a little.  And until someone who actually knew the truth came by and noticed, those guesses would remain intact.

I decided to spend a little time with a few Wikipedia pages today to see what I could discover about the accuracy, usability, and quality of the information available there.  After all, the Wikipedia entry for a lot of search terms in Google, Yahoo, and other search engines is usually in the top 5 or so results.  A lot of people are using Wikipedia:  reading it… doing homework with it… writing research papers… or business presentations… etc.  It'd be nice to know if that information is reliable or not.

For my little test I chose three Wikipedia pages:

• The Iraq War (a current, still-changing event)
• Coca-Cola (a long-standing company)
• Pepsi (the competition)

The Iraq War

The first thing I noticed about this entry is the length:  33 pages (based on print preview).  From first glances it also appears to be very complete.  It has lists of combatants, commanders, strengths, casualties, and time lines running along the upper right-hand side.  It also has several photos that accompanying the text along the way.  The article also has a clear and obvious message at the top of the page that says the event is current and, thus, could change at any time.  That's nice.

The majority of the article contains a detailed time line of events from pre-war Iraq to the present.  I actually read all 33 pages of that time line, too.  Here are a few things I didn't like:

• The quality of the writing is not top-notch.  In fact, obvious misspellings, missing words, and grammatical errors abound.
• Several pieces of the entry stated as fact have no reference link to show where the information came from.  Luckily, most of them are flagged as missing a reference.  But to the casual reader or student, that could easily be missed.  And if it's wrong, there's no where to go to find out where the information came from.
• Several parts of the entry are written with an obviously biased perspective.

A few things I did like:

• Questionable content was flagged.  Assuming people see those flags and use their brains, they help.
• An entire section of the entry is prominently flagged as questionable in regard to neutrality and accuracy.  You can't miss the flag, either.
• Over 160 external sources are referenced.  Even though some are obviously not neutral unbiased sources, it's nice to be able to see where the information comes from.

Overall, the entry is questionable.  It looks complete and it covers a lot of information.  But the validity and the accuracy of some of it is questionable.  To the trained, objective eye that makes the validity of the entire entry questionable.  If you can ignore the grammar, the post is written well enough that most people could follow along.  But is it encyclopedia-level writing?  Not at all.  Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source?  No.

Coca-Cola

The Coca-Cola entry fared much better.  It's well written and, from what I can tell, fairly complete.  I didn't notice any flags or any user-added mentions of inaccurate information, either.  The flow of the article is much clearer, including the history of the company and brand, production and formulation information, competition, advertising and marketing, criticisms, and Coca-Cola as a political/cultural symbol.

Is this encyclopedia-level writing?  Yes.  Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source?  Yes.

Pepsi

Wikipedia's entry on Pepsi is less resourceful than the one on Coca-Cola.  But it is just as well written.  In fact, I'd venture a guess that the same person wrote both articles.  And while it is lacking in the number of details that it provides, the Pepsi article still looks like a good resource.  It does, however, have four (4) uncited facts that have been flagged.

Is this encyclopedia-level writing?  Yes.  Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source?  Yes, but only as a supplemental source or a place to verify information from other sources.

Conclusions and Thoughts

Not surprisingly, the entry on the Iraq War was larger, more error prone, and less trustworthy than the entries on Coca-Cola or Pepsi.  In fact, you'll notice that trend throughout Wikipedia:  people, places, things, and events that generate a lot of emotional reactions from people seem to have the most attention.  And that's not always a good thing.  People are much more likely to let their emotional reaction to, say, a war spill out into Wikipedia than they are to let their feelings for soft drinks cloud their writing.

This is exactly why people using Wikipedia as a resource must do so with a grain of salt.  Yes, it can be a good resource.  Yes, there are pages on just about everything there.  And yes, just about everyone has used Wikipedia at some point.

But it is corruptible and it is fallible.  Any encyclopedia is, but Wikipedia is much more susceptible to inaccuracy and bias than traditional, printed encyclopedias.  Traditional encyclopedias pay people to research and verify everything before it gets printed.  Wikipedia relies on readers of the site to flag, discuss, and possibly modify inaccurate information.  Which system do you think returns the more accurate information?

Am I saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia?  No, of course not.  Like I said, it's a good resource.  But do your homework.  Check the source of your Wikipedia information.  Verify facts with other sources.  And if you see errors, bias, or other inaccuracies on Wikipedia, lend the service a hand and offer your fixes.

That's how the service grows and gets better.  And it didn't become the popular destination that it is for nothing.