Validity & Reliability
We're not into selling bridges here (that was the Brooklyn Bridge anyway!), we are building bridges. Let's take the first step and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia and how your students benefit from each.
Anyone can edit
Sure, allowing anyone to edit could be seen as a liability, however, this has become the biggest benefit Wikipedia has to offer. At the time of this writing there are 32,908,282 English language Wikipedia accounts, with 138,745 having made edits in the last 30 days. This amazing number of editors has created over 5,571,392 English language articles, and by allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia has enabled millions of people to contribute quickly and efficiently to a global repository of knowledge that is free to the masses.
“[In 2009,] Encarta encyclopedia, acknowledging what everyone else realized long ago: it just couldn’t compete with Wikipedia, a free, collaborative project that [had] become the leading encyclopedia on the Web.”
As we will discuss below, this large pool of editors has proven to be a solid defense against vandalism, and these Wikipedians have put forth their best effort to create high quality content. That said, because anyone can edit, consumers of Wikipedia need to vigilant and understand the proper way to use Wikipedia as a resource. Referencing documents such as the Researching with Wikipedia article can help set the expectation of how to use this tool.
Vandalism & Misinformation
Unfortunately, vandalism and misinformation are part of the Wikipedia experience. Wikipedia has taken many steps to combat vandalism from ever watchful editors, to tools that restrict who can edit pages susceptible to vandalism. Vandalism can take many forms, from incorrect images to blanking out an entire page. Fortunately there are a number of tools that in many cases result in a vandalized page being corrected in a matter of minutes or hours.
All article edits are tracked within Wikipedia, and with tools like WikiScanner, users can trace the IP address of the computer that made the edit, even if done anonymously. For repeat offenders, there are a number of levers that Wikipedians can use to identify and restrict the user, and if guilty of multiple infractions, the user can have accounts locked and even the user's IP address blocked.
Assessment of Quality
Quality of information in today's world is a tricky thing. It is not uncommon to hear of retractions by journalists who have for one reason or another made a false report. We all must be careful of the information we consume, and aware that even the most respected publications can error from time to time. With that lens, when using Wikipedia, one must understand how best to use the resource and utilize critical thinking skills as well as research skills to sniff out incorrect information.
“Students shouldn’t cite Wikipedia, much as they wouldn’t cite another encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a great starting place for research, as long as students know how to read it and evaluate the sources that are being used.”
That said, a 2005 article by the British journal Nature performed a study of 42 scientific articles in Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Of the articles tested, researchers found that the, ". . . difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." At least as far as scientific articles is concerned, content from Wikipedia can be taken at face value without too much concern. For informal information gathering, for many this will be sufficient, however, for those seeking academic expertise, one should dig a bit deeper into the source material.