Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Wikipedia , the collaborative work of 67,000 contributors, is currently the largest single encyclopedia, with 2,045,007 English articles as of October 12, 2007 ([52] Wikipedia , 2007). While many ([6] Benkler, 2006; [30] Janes, 2005; [33] Lessig, 2004; [36] O'Leary, 2005) see Wikipedia as a valuable resource, others, particularly scholars and librarians ([1] Achterman, 2005; [7] Binkley, 2006; [28] Ishizuka, 2004; [29] Jacso, 2002; [39], [40] Read 2006a, b), question the accuracy, comprehensiveness and writing quality of Wikipedia entries and the authority of its contributors.
Interestingly, although many question Wikipedia 's strength as an encyclopedia, few ([23] Giles, 2005; [43] Rosenzweig, 2006) have actually compared Wikipedia to other sources to provide evidence supporting their concern. Research is needed to determine Wikipedia 's place among reference works. This study will conduct a content analysis of Wikipedia and three other reputable history and general reference sources to compare their coverage of historical topics in terms of accuracy, breadth, and depth.
Literature review
Most reference works rely on scholars to write and edit their articles and essays. Wikipedia , however, allows anyone to contribute and edit encyclopedia entries. In fact, Wikipedia welcomes amateur contributors and notes that no formal training is required for posting an entry ([52] Wikipedia , 2007). Unlike other reference sources, individual Wikipedia entries do not list authors' full or even real names, and authors do not post their credentials in terms of expertise in the field of their contributions. Without full disclosure of authorship, readers cannot verify the expertise of the author or even conduct further research on his/her credentials. Furthermore, while Wikipedia encourages authors to cite references, it realizes that many articles do not include sources ([52] Wikipedia , 2007). The encyclopedia readily admits that there are certainly opportunities for vandalism, and the lack of an editorial board or governing process may result in under-coverage of certain topics. However, the encyclopedia believes that its openness allows for greater breadth and depth of many subjects, and any inaccuracies, inadvertent or malicious, may be corrected in a matter of hours, and new discoveries quickly added. It is precisely this open peer-production process that champions of Wikipedia cite as its greatest strength.
Is Wikipedia a reputable source? Should educators and librarians be embracing this...