The author recounts an incident where several students provided the same incorrect information on an examination, each using similar language. The source of the incorrect information was quickly traced to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/). As a consequence, the college department concerned has banned the use of Wikipedia as an acceptable citation.

The author describes the processes involved in the review and editing of articles by professional journals in order to ensure a level of reliability and accuracy. These processes, however, also increase publishing lead times and cost. Wikipedia is able to engage the enormous user base of the Internet in order to enter, update, and edit material, which makes it instantly available online. This democratization of publishing is both Wikipedia’s advantage, through access to a large pool of eager, unpaid authors and editors, and its disadvantage in that these same people may produce material that is wrong, distorted, or malicious. The author notes that Wikipedia’s internal editors review content, but prioritize their work according to the popularity of a page. Consequently, popular items may well receive editorial scrutiny, but because of the enormous volume of material involved, the total percentage of material reviewed is likely to be small.

The article provides an interesting and timely reminder that the easy-to-access material available on Wikipedia and other online systems, that anyone can edit, is likely to reflect popular opinion more than fact, and deserves no more or less credence than the opinions of your local bartender.