The Purpose of Wikiality

In a recent Colbert Report episode, Steven Colbert defines a new word for our technology driven generation, wikiality.” Colbert goes on to explain how information on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia can be changed by a single user and then made “the truth” with enough votes in agreement from users. He goes on to explain how “wikiality” could one day influence our perception of reality.


With that being said, should student be allowed to use Wikipedia, or for that matter any online user contributed website, as a reliable source of information? This is an increasing important question due to the rising popularity of using free or less expensive online textbooks as an instructional resource. Currently right now in my classroom, Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source of information. Why you might ask? Have I ever found incorrect information, or opinions stated as facts? The answer is no, I haven’t. So why then? Well, I was simply told as an undergraduate student that it was not acceptable due to the ability of online users to change information. I then carried over the same line of thinking in my own classroom.

With the assignment to really ponder and take a stance on Wikipedia, I decided to do a little investigation into the unreliability of Wikipedia. I decided to look up two of the most controversial people I could think of, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. My line of thinking is that if any topic will have opinions stated as facts it would be these two hot topic politicians. As I scanned through the entries on these two well known men, I found nothing I felt that was opinions stated as facts. No statements claiming George Bush was a just looking for revenge in Iraq or that Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen. Both entries have sections on their early life and career, accomplishments and policies.

Let’s try another controversial topic, same sex marriage. This should prove a problem if all the entries are entered by random people on the internet. This topic should surely have something “fishy” about it. As I scanned through the entry I did find the following disclaimers:

• This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)

• This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (April 2010)

Nice, I thought to myself, clearly anyone reading this entry for reliable information would “know better” than to take this information as the absolute truth due to the disclaimer. So what this mean in terms of using Wikipedia for a reliable source?

I don’t think Wikipedia should be used as source of information for formal assignments, or research projects due to the fact that my students may not understand the weight that is carried with the above disclaimers. But could it serve another purpose? Of course, it serves just fine as a source for my little I wonder “why” or” who” or “when’s” for personal knowledge. It can definitely serve this purpose for someone who can distinguish between “wikiality” and reality.

Pictures from Microsoft Word 2007