Its been ranked the tenth most popular website on the Internet and with over one and a half million articles ranging from the perils of pop culture to the overly obscure it looks sure to revolutionise the way we store, access and think about information.

Knowledge is a powerful tool. Wikipedia, or rather wikis are all about the liberalisation and consolidation of information and turning it into knowledge.

The concept of the wiki, is both new and challenging for society. I say challenging because there is there is a certain stigma surrounding Wikipedia and the reliability and credibility of its information. Please, allow me to debunk some of the myths surrounding Wikipedia.

The information is not reliable because anyone can edit it.
Wikipedia is a secondary source, as I said before, it’s a collaborative effort, the consolidation of information. If you’re claiming Wikipedia to be incorrect, you’re claiming all of its sources to be incorrect. Each Wikipedia article cites each source used to create the article at the bottom of each page.

Independent studies have shown that in fact Wikipedia is on par with the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica, each having an average of 3-4 errors per article.

Wikipedia adheres to its strict verifiability policy, which states “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth…Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources…Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.”

Wikipedia also has a strict policy, called the No Original Research policy, which states: “Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

Additionally Wikipedia has an administration staff of around 1,000 and a moderation staff of many many more who sift through the articles and either remove or enclose in a disclaimer, statements that are in violation of Wikipedia’s policies including statements lacking sources. Anyone can edit any article and make changes, however, through the power of the wiki you’re free to make changes and any corrections, through this wonderful thing called peer review. History is not being re-written, it’s being refined.

Wikipedia is biased because anyone can edit it
According to Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, “absolute and non-negotiable”. Wikipedia has a simple formula for neutrality.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By “fact” we mean “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.” By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean “a matter which is subject to dispute.” Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, “The Beatles were the greatest band,” we can say: “Most people from Sydney in the 1960’s believe that the Beatles were the greatest band,” which can be supported by references. Articles that have bias either have the relevant content removed, or when the challenge of the bias is being challenged itself the page includes a disclaimer at the top of the page.

Wikipedia’s policy on Neutrality states: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.” Content is no longer biased, but balanced.

Wikipedia is not reliable because it’s subject to vandalism and abuse
Committing vandalism is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy; once spotted it is dealt with accordingly. Wikipedia supports a policy of conflict of interest and treats vandalism in this vein COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. It also discourages self-promotion and campaigning. Articles that make no plausible claim of notability are usually found and deleted shortly after creation.

Again, through the power of the wiki, either the administration, moderation staff, regular readers and editors and the article restored. Information is not vandalized, it’s evaluated and evaluated.

So from this we can conclude that Wikipedia indeed is a reliable, credible, and verifiable source of information and one can have no hesitation in referring to it as a source.