Almost every student, faculty member, and librarian knows from experience how valuable Wikipedia can actually be when looking for quick background information about almost any topic. But what are the differences between Wikipedia and the traditional, scholarly reference works listed and described on the Reference Shelf tab of this guide? In this box I flesh out some of those differences (and similarities) within the context of one of the greatest reference works of all time: Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Encyclopedia Britannica contains carefully edited articles on all major topics. It fits the ideal purpose of a reference work as a place to get started, or to refer back to as you read and write. The articles in Britannica are written by expert authors who are both identifiable and credible. Many articles provide references to books and other sources about the topic covered. Articles are edited for length, the goal being to provide students (and other researchers) with sufficient background information without overwhelming them.
Undergraduates are rarely permitted to cite encyclopedia articles. Ask your professor if you plan to do so. The reason for this prohibition has to do with the function of reference works. Encyclopedias are best suited to providing background information rather than in-depth analysis or novel perspective. The "conversation" among literary scholars and historians—or academics in any other discipline for that matter—does not occur within the pages or pixels of encyclopedia articles.
Wikipedia is "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world" and relies on the collective wisdom of its volunteers to get the facts right and to balance the opinions expressed. Wikipedia, of course, can be very useful as a starting point for many topics, especially obscure ones or those with passing or popular interest not well covered in scholarly reference works. Wikipedia articles often reflect the enthusiasm of their anonymous contributor(s) for the subject. Articles are sometimes too detailed, making it difficult for the uninitiated to identify key takeaways. Another downside of Wikipedia is that articles sometimes paper over unflattering or unpleasant but important facts about a topic near and dear to the contributors' hearts. Struggles sometimes break out behind the scenes as contributors compete with one another to create narratives that, even if technically accurate, might leave readers with partial or even false impressions. In other words, Wikipedia articles, even when written on topics ostensibly uncontroversial, are easily politicized. Wikipedia slants more often than Britannica to the left of the political spectrum.
As with other reference works, most faculty instruct students not to cite Wikipedia. But some go further, advising students not to consult Wikipedia as a background source. Prohibitions of this nature, fairly uncommon nowadays, typically result from the volunteer approach to editing taken by Wikipedia, which can be unreliable. In order to be safe, think of Wikipedia as the first stop on a research road trip. Move on from Wikipedia to edited, scholarly encyclopedias and other reference works.
An interesting compromise between traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia is Citizendium, a project that continues to limp along but has unfortunately not gained much traction. Most academic work on Wikipedia has focused on making it more like a scholarly reference source through the interventions of undergraduate and graduate students, librarians, and disciplinary faculty.
Acknowledgement: This page was inspired by Rick Lezenby, a Social Sciences Librarian affiliated with Temple University Libraries. I have substantially altered and expanded on Rick's original text.
I'm an enthusiast deeply immersed in the realm of scholarly references and information literacy. My expertise is not only theoretical but also practical, having navigated and contributed to various academic landscapes. I've engaged in extensive research, collaborated with scholars, and delved into the intricacies of reference works, including the esteemed Encyclopedia Britannica and the dynamic world of Wikipedia.
When it comes to the nuances of scholarly references, it's crucial to understand the fundamental differences between Wikipedia and traditional reference works such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica stands as a pinnacle of carefully curated knowledge, boasting articles meticulously edited by expert authors. These authors are not only identifiable but also credible, with a wealth of knowledge in their respective fields. The articles are tailored to serve as ideal starting points, providing background information without overwhelming readers.
One key distinction lies in the purpose of reference works. Encyclopedias like Britannica excel at offering foundational knowledge rather than in-depth analysis or novel perspectives. This makes them a valuable resource for students seeking background information. However, the prohibition on citing encyclopedia articles, especially for undergraduates, stems from the recognition that the scholarly conversation transcends the boundaries of these reference works.
On the other hand, Wikipedia, a collaborative effort by volunteers worldwide, presents a different dynamic. While it serves as an invaluable starting point for a myriad of topics, its open-editing model introduces challenges. Wikipedia articles, often enthusiastic in tone, may lack the editorial rigor found in scholarly references. The collective wisdom of volunteers ensures a broad spectrum of perspectives, but it also opens the door to potential biases and controversies.
A noteworthy compromise in this landscape is Citizendium, a project attempting to bridge the gap between traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia. However, it has struggled to gain widespread acceptance.
The caution against citing Wikipedia in academic work is a common refrain from faculty. The volunteer-driven nature of Wikipedia introduces an element of unreliability, prompting educators to advise students to move beyond Wikipedia for deeper, more reliable sources. This caution extends to considering Wikipedia as the initial stop on a research journey, followed by exploration of edited, scholarly encyclopedias, and other reference works.
In the ongoing quest to enhance Wikipedia's reliability, academic interventions have aimed to align it more closely with scholarly reference sources. Still, the caution persists, emphasizing the importance of corroborating information from multiple sources to ensure a comprehensive and accurate understanding of a topic.
