I have never been a huge fan of Wikipedia because it has always been drilled into my head that it is such an unreliable source for information. In the past, I never bothered to read up on how Wikipedia works. I just assumed that because my professors and fellow colleagues didn’t trust it, that I shouldn’t either. I would read it occasionally, but it wasn’t a source I rely upon for an answer to a question. I found the readings this week to be interesting and eye opening. I had no idea how or why Wikipedia was first formed and I didn’t really understand how it could or couldn’t be edited. After reading these articles, I feel more informed on the nuts and bolts of how this ever changing encyclopedia works, but I don’t really think I will trust it anymore than I have in the past. I was not surprised at the vast number of articles that can be found on Wikipedia, one only has to visit the site and play around a bit, before it becomes apparent that there is an article for almost anything you search for. What I did find surprising were the small number of people who are actually employed by Wikipedia to help patrol the site. I was also intrigued by the safeguards the site has put in place, for instance if a person edited an article more than three times in one day, they would be blocked from editing for a full day. Despite the attempts to try and stop people from sabotaging the articles, there are always going to be some changes that are just ridiculous and done on purpose. I even have a student who was banned from using Wikipedia because he made vulgar changes to several articles, while I have another student who admitted he does the same thing, but hasn’t been caught! I guess the real questions are whether this site needs expert opinion, whether it can be trusted and whether one can call it an encyclopedia? I find nothing wrong with people editing Wikipedia, and I am glad that the founders have checks in place to try and catch those who misuse this. I think there are plenty of people out there who are experts on all sorts of topics, even though they may not be professors or hold their doctorate in that subject. So, this is a fine way for them to express their knowledge. But I will always take what I read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. As was said in one of the readings, any encyclopedia should not be the ending point for researching on a topic. Therefore, I think it is fine to read what Wikipedia has to say, but one needs to delve further and look at other sources.
Wikipedia is still a great source for basic information. I use it frequently, especially when I am reading a book and there is a name or event mentioned, and I know I know it, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. That is when I go to Wikipedia. But we as historians must continue to stress that while Wikipedia is great for finding basic information, it should not be used as a source when doing original research.