Freelance writers doing research on the Internet often turn to Wikipedia to get started. Recently the Encylopedia Britannica, the 32-volume print monster, announced that it would no longer issue print editions and would only have an online version — although you can still access older print versions at the library.
Thanks to Open-Site for creating the infographic.
Your Take
How much do you use Wikipedia for your freelance writing assignments? What else do you use it for? Tell us in the comments below the infographic!
Via: Open-Site.org
Sharon Hurley Hall says
Wikipedia has improved a lot, John. Though I would never use it as my sole source of info, it’s a great place for finding collated wisdom. I usually browse to the sources at the end and check those out as well to make sure something is reliable and trustworthy before including it in my writing.
John Soares says
I also make good use of the cited sources at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. I read quite a few of the history entries, and I’m impressed at how accurate they are overall.
Anne Wayman says
Thanks so much for the link John. I don’t do a ton of research and I didn’t grow up with encyclopedias in the house – we had a ton of books and lots of magazines. I always found the articles in encyclopedic slow to read and while the info was solid it took huge effort to get at it.
I’ve really been glad that Wikipedia has improved so much. I’ve watched that happen over time and have even donated a small amount of money to them. I think they’re great actually.
John Soares says
Anne, I first used Wikipedia about a decade ago, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how well it has progressed over the years. It’s comprehensive, including covering many things that would never be in a traditional encyclopedia, and it’s overall fairly accurate.
And I also make occasional donations.
Allena Tapia says
I teach 9-12 grade composition in a special summer program, and as an adjunct at a community college, AND have taught freshman comp at my alma mater as a TA. For each group, I am highly proactive about the use of Wiki. I tend to encourage it as a starting point for a basis/summary, then I show them how to use the citations (which you also mention) at the bottom to go deeper into their research.
Teachers (and clients/employers/whomever they’re doing research for) will require more than Wiki if they’re on top of things, but I think it will be “the starting point” for many years to come.
John Soares says
Allena, I agree that Wikipedia is a great place to start, but that students doing research for a paper or project need to go much deeper, and that’s where those citations at the bottom really help.
Wikipedia articles really shine at giving the “big picture” overview of a topic.
TC/Writer Underground says
I recently researched a couple of fisheries topics on Wikipedia, and while I was surprised at some of the inaccuracies (I found numerous errors relating to salmon), I think one overlooked problem is the manipulation of the information to fit a political need.
There’s a good chance one of the entries I corrected had been changed to fit someone’s political agenda (proof of the limited range of coho salmon), and while wikipedia is a great first step (as John has pointed out), it’s definitely open to manipulation for reasons having nothing to do with science.
John Soares says
Tom, you’ve hit on the main weakness of Wikipedia. Topics that have strong potential political overtones sometimes have misleading or incorrect information as a writer attempts to use the entry to promote a particular agenda. However, there are ways, of course, to edit what a person writes.
I don’t remember the specific topic, but I came across one where the infighting among editors was fierce.
As an example, I just looked at the Marxism entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism, which is almost guaranteed to generate controversy. There have been about 50 edits over the last month.
Mike Carlson says
Ahh the end of an era! I remember Encylopedia Britannica being THE go-to source when I was in compulsory school for just about every report or paper I did.
I do lament the decline in library usage (along with bookstores) because I am still in love with paper books. I think my fellow students thought I was insane when I left the Chico state library last year with more than 10 books to take home for research.
Having said that, I do think Wikipedia is brilliant. The accumulation of knowledge there has not been rivaled ever throughout history. It’s mind blowing really. And I do find the information to be remarkably accurate. I wonder if academia puts off Wikipedia because it makes research too easy? Researching is certainly a learned skill, one that is learned by doing. Wikipedia certainly is a boon for the lazy student!
I do use Wikipedia as a starting point sometimes. I never cite it (damn academia brainwashing) but I can read it to get an overview of a topic. But I always go to other sources to verify the accuracy and for more info. Put me down in the pro-Wikipedia category 🙂
John Soares says
Mike, I’m also a big fan of print books. I have several shelves full of them. And I still haven’t bought an iPad or a Kindle or a Nook.
I think the main knock academia has on Wikipedia is the perceived lack of quality control. I think many academics would concede that much of the material on Wikipedia is factual, but there’s a small amount of material that is not — and that’s the problem from the academic’s perspective.
Dave Doolin says
Speaking as a bona fide, practicing, credentialed academic, yes, the factual content is part of it.
John Soares says
Thanks for the corroboration Dave! Is there another part of it?
Dave Doolin says
For lack of a better word, “primativeness.”
That is, being the discoverer, the inventor, the first to prove, anything where precedence can be established.
Side note: There is this somewhat ridiculous notion about being a “thought leader” running around in startup circles, and probably internet marketing circles. A successful academic is a thought leader by definition, or nothing. It’s the whole point of graduate work, at least in the sciences and engineering.
Few academics are successful bloggers because it’s largely a waste of time to be plowing old ground. It’s not good for tenure, for funding, and frankly, a case could be made it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money (for public schools). In contrast, bloggers are more than happy to jump on trending topics. And that’s not a bad thing.
Because I’m not in a tenured position, I can afford to do some blogging here and there. I’m anticipating writing a bit for technology transfer, a bit on mastery, and a bit on small business strategy for people with day jobs. =)
Dave Doolin says
Just to be clear, I believe academics *should* do a little more blogging, it’s just not part of the reward structure
John Soares says
Blogging is definitely not well rewarded in academia. I do know of a few profs who blog regularly, but it’s usually in conjunction with promoting popular books they’ve written or their field is specifically education itself.
Academics typically have to work very hard, so they must do those activities with the highest payoff.
Deborah Cain says
In legal writing and research I do not use it, nor do I cite it in APA format however to get to a source sometimes, if the information is accurate, the cite will provide valid information for looking up other information. I have used it a few times to refer to historical or general information when inquiring about something I have forgotten or do not know or want to know more about in general. Prior to choosing a Wikipedia link, I will usually choose a .org or dig deeper though, even when not doing legal research. On the other hand, I think it would be fun for use when writing in other formats! Which reminds me, I have been thinking about the novel I have been plugging away at lately, just for something less factual and lighter!
John Soares says
At least in legal writing/research there are specific websites dedicated to the subject. I agree that Wikipedia articles are sometimes not reliable — but the source links can be very useful.
Dave Doolin says
I use wikipedia mostly to find the actual, real websites having canonical information.
It turns out wikipedia generally outranks everyone for any topic they cover.
For a lot of topics, SEO creeps and corporate fluff smack good content too far down the SERPs to find, but very often, wikipedia will have one or two very high quality links down at the bottom.
As for a resource, I gave up on wikipedia after getting stomped in an edit war by someone who wrote a vicious, highly stereotypical piece on White Trash. It was evident the author’s article was based on some delusional misconceptions involving “Deliverance” meets “Married With Children.” Plainly speaking, the author was a bigot. That was back when Larry Sanger was running it, years and years ago. Jimbo, however, stopped by with an informed opinion at one point, that was pretty cool.
I never regained my enthusiasm or or trust of wikipedia. And certainly never spent any time contributing after that.
John Soares says
I’ve seen a few of those wars. (See my reply above to Tom Chandler.) And that’s where Wikipedia truly has problems — with controversial subjects.
Dave Doolin says
This a rich topic, so I’ll say a little more.
EB was citeable to some extent. Not, perhaps, for graduate level work, but still, eminently more authoritative-from-an-expertise perspective. EB authors were selected according to true expertise in their fields. So it’s too bad wikipedia drove them out of business.
Let’s do a little thought experiment.
Suppose I’m a world class authority on implicit discrete element methods, where this authority is granted by peers, colleagues and superiors in the field of study. This kind of authority cannot be “earned” via SEO, or even by publishing papers. It has to be earned over time, incrementally, as one’s expertise is demonstrated. In short, one can do the mathematics, or one cannot, and over time it’s clear.
Now, supposing I wanted to share my expertise on wikipedia. Seems reasonable, right?
Ok, so I spend many hours polishing my material, writing in a more audience friendly form, ensuring the math is, in fact, correct.
Then I publish it on wikipedia.
Where it can be immediately edited by anyone with a wikipedia account regardless of their expertise.
What then? Re-edit to “fix” the changes? Put the article in my RSS feed to monitor changes?
For no personal credit and no money?
Makes no sense to me.
Evidently, it doesn’t make much sense to very many other world class authorities either.
It would, however, feel stupendous to be selected as an EB author for my field.
Anyway, I’m volunteering to teach all day tomorrow (Saturday), so I better leave it here.
John Soares says
Great example Dave, and that’s why few Wikipedia articles are written by top experts. I personally haven’t written anything for Wikipedia, even though I really like the site and do you use it frequently, in part because I don’t want to deal with someone editing my work and having to check on it.
That said, there are a lot of smart people who are willing to write for Wikipedia and deal with edits and hassles. They may not be the top people in the field, but in many cases they don’t need to be. They just need to have a very good understanding of the topic and be able to explain it well.
John Soares says
And I’ve learned a lot from the Encyclopedia Britannica. When I traveled through Europe in 1985, I read many EB articles in many libraries, including the Centre Pompidou in Paris. (Wikipedia link!)
William C. Lepice says
Interesting. I’d always considered Wikipedia something I’d use for general information, but not something I’d use for serious research as you couldn’t necessarily count on how accurate it way.
S Williamson says
Encyclopaedia Britannica had the chance to be a real competitor to Wikipedia. In 2000 Britannica.com was launched which provided free access to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s database. High traffic volumes and poor internal management resulted in Britannica withdrawing the free access and returning to a subscription business model. The Wikipedia article on Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly outlines the financial problems that the company has been having in recent years. Time will tell if Encyclopaedia Britannica will be around much longer.
John Soares says
I hope Britannica does continue. I learned a lot from it over the years — the pre-Internet years anyway.
Katja @ PostalGold says
I am pleasantly surprised that Wikipedia is 98% as accurate as college textbooks! Good infographic, I enjoyed it!
Personally I haven’t used a library since 4 years ago at uni, all my research is online now. I do miss real encyclopaedia britannicas though, the pictures used to keep me entertained for ages.
John Soares says
The Britannica was a major source of information for me for many years. May it have a long life on the Internet.