Capstone Activity - Evaluating Wikipedia

Intro:

I was very intrigued to evaluate an online reference material.  What I chose to evaluate was Wikipedia as it is becoming more and more popular with students in my classes.  After critiquing an article by Kim and Sei-Ching, for assignment #1, about how even university students are relying on online sites such as Wikipedia, I was really intrigued to apply Riedling's criteria to Wikipedia.  Below are my findings.

Evaluating Wikipedia:

There were millions of print and online reference works which I could have chosen to evaluate.  However, over the past few years free citizen-built encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia have become a popular topic of debate.  Many question the value and purpose of free citizen-built encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia.  I believe that it is a value reference source which can provide students with a starting point for the research and ultimately a great deal of information when used properly!  Therefore, Riedling’s steps in the evaluative process have been applied to Wikipedia, with a specific focus on several pages.  The purpose of focusing on a select few pages is to provide context for the evaluation.  The pages I have chosen are those of historical figures such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Riedling’s evaluative process begins by determining the scope of the content.  In an examination of the pages on Stalin, Hitler and Bonaparte there is a great deal of breadth and depth of information.  The information is very detailed and serves its purpose in informing users about the lives of these figures.  Unfortunately, the pages have so much information, posted by a variety of authors, that there is no clear audience with regards to age.  Therefore, not all aspects of the pages are appropriate or relevant to all audiences.

Riedling’s evaluation process continues by assessing a work’s accuracy, authenticity and bias.  With regards to the three pages I evaluated the information appears to be accurate, authentic and without bias.  It should be noted however, that since anyone can edit or post new information to a page, personal bias and inaccurate information could easily be contributed.  If this were to occur, then the accuracy and authenticity would be compromised.

The evaluation process also takes into consideration the arrangement and presentation of information.  In examining the Wikipedia homepage as well as a number of other content specific pages, the presentation and arrangement is excellent.  It is very user friendly as there are clear titles on each page.  Each page is also formatted the same way with the basic information (dates, etc.) and images on the right margin with the body of the written content on the main page.  Furthermore, within the body of the text are hyperlinks.  These links take the reader to related pages within the encyclopaedia.  This helps the site meet Riedling’s fourth criterion with regards to similar works.  By including hyperlinks, Wikipedia ensures that related information is shared with the user.

Riedling’s evaluative process also takes into consideration the timelessness of a reference work.  Since Wikipedia is a citizen-built encyclopaedia, individuals can constantly post and edit information.  Therefore, the information has the potential to be more current than any other print source that may be on the shelves of libraries.

The final step in the evaluative process is the cost.  Since Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia there is no cost to the user.  This makes the site a free reference source.

After applying Riedling’s evaluation criteria to Wikipedia, I still believe it to be a valuable reference source for students.  While there is the possibility of flaws with regards to content accuracy and bias, it does act as a free starting point for any inquiry.  Furthermore, as long as the information is cross-referenced with other sources, it in itself can be useful in aiding students’ searches for relevant information.