I remember the days when the encyclopedia salesman would come to the door, selling leather-bound sets of books with gold-dusted pages. In those ancient caveman days, the biggest problem with the encyclopedias, was that they would quickly get outdated. Science, the global political landscape and technology are often always in flux, which caused the print version of the encyclopedia to be less valuable longer-term.

While there are some “cons” to this resource, there are also many “pros” that make this tool one of the most popular reference sites on the web. Take the front page of Wikipedia for example; when you click on it the articles are topical (in the news) and historical (this day in history). Pulling recent articles and factoids, it seems to change often, providing a lot of useful information for readers in a clean, functional and attractive way. Wikipedia’s search feature and design are all about usability, and it shows in it popularity. If you want to ever use the material from this site, Wikipedia’s copyright rules are highly visible, clear and easy-to-understand.

Seems like every writer these days heads straight to the doors of Wikipedia for their research. Free, open-source and always ranking in Google, Wikipedia is accessible and editable by just about anyone. I’m going to repeat that last bit from their website, because it’s really quite important here:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. It is a special type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing. If you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references. Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia.–SOURCE: Introduction to Wikipedia

In theory, Wikipedia follows the credo that every writer should–“if you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references.” Admirable and necessary, references are what add reputability to Wikipedia’s entries. Unfortunately, there is a flaw with this design that appears to be evident if you look closely at the discussion, simply because there is this little problem with the “facts.”

Take Midnight Syndicate, a band whose rise to fame has now taken them to Hollywood. You may know who they are, they have a Dungeons and Dragons soundtrack CD, and often has a Halloween soundtrack you can buy at the Halloween Express superstores. The entry, by itself, is innocuous enough, until you get to the discussion tab at the very top of your screen and see this notice.

This article is the subject of the Arbitration Committee decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate. GuardianZ and Skinny McGee are banned indefinitely from this article. No present or past employee or associate of the band Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit this or associated articles. Such persons may make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if they identify themselves and the roles they play or played in the group. Users or accounts that edit this or associated articles in a disruptive manner by making aggressive biased edits may be blocked. Posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee by Newyorkbrad, 31 January 2007. —SOURCE: Discussion on the Midnight Syndicate Wikipedia Entry

Why am I pointing this out? Well, for one thing, this isn’t the only entry like this. Pretty much any entry that has some sort of conjecture or opinion at its core (even the circumcision entry) has comments like this as well. Is this Wikipedia’s fault? No, absolutely not, but it is something that we writers should keep in mind when we’re using the tool, because legal battles, personal grudges, political agendas and other opinionated ventures tend to “shape” the facts–whether we want them to or not. Wikipedia strives to be objective (there are other versions with a political slant like Conservapedia and Liberapedia), but due to the massive amounts of changes and edits that take place every day we–as the reader–really should doublecheck the discussion, references and additional sources on the entries we’re using.

Truly Wikipedia is not a static encyclopedia, but a living one that continually breathes with changes. Evergreen, Wikipedia is useful–but it shouldn’t be your only tool; I use it as a starting point or for a quick answer if I can’t find the original source.

In terms of writer’s ethics, there’s another little thing I should mention. Please–do not scrape the text from the entries and re-purpose it verbatim as your own material. While it’s easy to rely on Wikipedia because it is a powerful tool, there is a way for you to be caught if you don’t follow their guidelines set out in their copyright.

So. Is Wikipedia reliable for your research? Yes and no. Like any resource out there, this popular tool has its pros and cons–it’s up to you to remember how to use it.