The answer is a definite, maybe.

Encyclopedias in general are perfect as springboards for further research into more academic sources. They can introduce a topic quickly and provide background and context. They can also prepare you for the more detailed and technical information you will find in scholarly books and journals. Although they should always be cited, the citation may not actually count toward the minimum required for your research assignments.

Probably the most popular online encyclopedias is Wikipedia. It is a collaborative project, a new experiment in community writing. This means that ANYONE can upload and change the content found there. If you click on the links to the "History" and "Discussion" pages in Wikipedia, you can track the changes and find information about how each entry has been edited. These can be a useful way to examine disagreements and debates over the content. Learning about the controversy might well contribute to your understanding of a topic. Since contributors often differ on what things should be called, that controversy might also be another source for alternative search terms which may assist in refining a topic.

Wikipedia can be a great starting point for research, particularly in the case of very recent events and for ideas that exist mainly in the arena of popular culture. For example, an Otis student recently tried to find information on a topic he knew little about, heroin chic. When that term was entered into the databases, most resources came up related to drug usage. But when entered into Wikipedia, what came up was this short definition, "Heroin Chic was a fashion trend in the mid 1990s that characterized the looks of a terminal stage drug addict." There were also names associated with it, model Kate Moss and the Calvin Klein company. With that definition and those additional search terms, he went on to do further academic research.

Accuracy
Using Wikipedia as your ONLY source is NOT recommended because it may not be a completely reliable source. You’d really have to be an expert in the subject area to know whether it is totally accurate or not. Since anyone may contribute to the articles to Wikipedia, the factual information you find there should be verified through other sources.

Verifying information is something you should always do anyway, but especially for encyclopedias. They can be overly simplified, out of date, biased, or erroneous. Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Grove Dictionary of Art are considered authoritative encyclopedias. But even they should not be blindly trusted. Recently, we found old and outdated information about Otis in Britannica and it was difficult to find an address where corrections could be sent.

An interesting article comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Britannica appeared in December 2005 in the journal, Nature. There followed a rebuttal by Britannica and another by Wikipedia.

Authority
The people who write articles for academic reference books are selected because they are experts and scholars in their fields .One of the major issues academics have with Wikipedia is the fact that articles are not signed. An article from the March 12th, 2006 Sunday New York Times asked the question: Can an article be judged as credible without knowing its author?

When I asked Jimmy Wales, the founder of [WIKIPEDIA], last week, he discounted the importance of individual contributors to Britannica. "When people trust an article in Britannica,’' he said, "it's not who wrote it, it's the process." There, a few editors review a piece and then editing ceases. By contrast, Wikipedia is built with unending scrutiny and ceaseless editing.

Critical Thinking
An important part of your education is practicing your critical thinking skills. Develop a healthy skepticism about ALL information. Don’t settle for the first and easiest source that you come upon. Try keep following the leads and learn something outside of what you already know.


For more information, read this column called "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?" by Stacy Schiff from the July '06 New Yorker.

The Otis Policy on Using Wikipedia for Research
A Wikipedia citation can be an appropriate convenience when the point being supported is minor, noncontroversial, or also supported by other evidence.In addition, Wikipedia is an appropriate source for some extremely recent topics (especially in popular culture or technology) for which it provides the sole or best available synthetic, analytical, or historical discussion.

Wikipedia should never be used as the primary source for information on anything that is central to an argument, complex, or controversial. It should be treated like an encyclopedia because like them, its articles are second or third hand summaries. It can be appropriate when >the point being supported is minor, non-controversial, or also supported by other evidence.

Students should take into account the special limitations because it is an on-line encyclopedia written by a largely unregulated, worldwide, often anonymous community where the information may be unreliable because of contested terrain, edit wars, or vandalism.

Finally, students should be aware that it is a dynamic, constantly changing, mutating resource. Some articles change so frequently that students should include not only the day, but sometimes even the hour of access through the Wikipedia "history feature."