Did You Know... Wikipedia Can Be Reliable?

Wikipedia is a well-known, online encyclopedia and “is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases…” (Wikipedia). It is important to note this because Wikipedia is clearly a place for citizen journalism, or public deliberation. As James McDonald mentions in his chapter “I Agree, But…: Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation,” from the book Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation: “public deliberation is even seen as constituting citizenship: individuals become citizens by discursively—and thus rhetorically—engaging one another in the public sphere” (McDonald 199). Even though McDonald’s chapter is about citizens in public forums for political issues, it still largely relates to Wikipedia’s collaborative features. Since Wikipedia enables “Anyone with Internet access” to make changes to its website, it automatically becomes a part of the citizen genre. Now, because of this eligibility for citizens to make changes to the information on Wikipedia’s website, it has received many critiques on the reliability of its content. However, through the use of projects such as WikiProject Skepticism, WikipediaVerifiability, and Reliability of Wikipedia, they attempt to make their information as credible as possible.

 Wikipedia uses WikiProject Skepticism to monitor "articles related to Scientific Skepticism… The project ensures that these articles are written from a neutral point of view, and do not put forward invalid claims as truth" (Wikipedia).  This page includes goals of the project, all which encourage quality information and reliable sources. The Wikipedia Verifiability page ensures that people reading and editing their site "can check that the information comes from a reliable source." In addition to ensuring this eligibility to fact check, it also assures its users that "its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." On this page, they also warn users not to "use articles from Wikipedia as sources... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly" (Wikipedia). They know the risk of calling themselves a reliable source when all of their information relies on citizen journalists and volunteers from this genre. Finally, the Reliability of Wikipedia page informs users on how reliable the information provided is by discussing "several studies [that] have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia." By quoting studies that compare their accuracy levels to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia attempts to confirm its credibility with its users. Through the use of collaborative editing Wikipedia is able to quickly remove false or misleading information. However, it is ultimately up to the user to determine the accuracy of the information provided by fact-checking it before relying on it.

All of Wikipedia's project goals seem to aim to improve the accuracy of the information they provide their users with. That being said, I decided to do a little research myself in determining the accuracy of a Wikipedia webpage from their “Did You Know…” section on their homepage. The webpage I chose to analyze was about the Fairy lorikeet, “a species of parrot in the family Psittaculidae,” as Wikipedia claims. After reviewing the sources used to accumulate the information about the Fairy lorikeet on Wikipedia, I found the sources to be quite credible. I find the International Union for Conservation of Nature source used to reliable because the website is directly from an organization. Not only does the information come from an organization, but the site also includes a page confirming their resources. However, this website gets its information about birds from another organization's database: birdlife.org. I still find both of these sources trustworthy because they come from organizations who actually do physical research and document their field work. "BirdLife International is the Red List Authority for birds and as such they have provided all the bird assessments… these assessments and their accompanying documentation reflect the information that appears on the World Bird Database developed and maintained by BirdLife International.” So, through the use of official organizational sources, Wikipedia is able to accurately provide information, such as the Fairy lorikeet's scientific name: Charmosyna pulchella, to its users.

Another source Wikipedia uses to confirm its information is World Parrot Trust. This information seems credible because they also get their information from BirdLife International, who have already established credibility. However, its sources are also linked to a different site called "lexicon-of-parrots.com" I can only assume that this source is credible due to the fact that much of the information provided on this website is also provided from credible sites such as BirdLife International. This shared information is another way writers and editors collaborate outside of Wikipedia; there is a sort of intertextuality at play between each source.  Unfortunately, one source at the bottom of the World Parrot Trust website has me slightly doubting their credibility. The source links to a website called "cites.org," however, when the link is clicked it takes the user to a screen that reads: "Page not found: Sorry, but the page you're looking for does not exist." Things like this can cause a source to easily be deemed unreliable.

            Although the third source included on the Wikipedia page hails from a typically avoided ".com" website, it still appears to be reliable. The information provided on this pages lines up with other sources such as BirdLife International and World Parrot Trust; unfortunately, in order to read more information a subscription is required. On the other hand, the website is completely based off of a published handbook titled Handbook of the Birds ofthe World Alive. So, the website is essentially an electronic version of the information reflected in the actual handbook and can be deemed reliable due to the fact that the information is veritably published as a hard copy

 After checking various facts from the Wikipedia page about the Fairy lorikeet with the sources provided, everything seems to be correct. Although there can be small details that don’t line up correctly, the facts that I have checked are completely accurate and reliable pieces of information. The information provided on Wikipedia is definitely through intertextual context.  As James E. Porter puts it in his article, "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community:" "We can distinguish between two types of intertextuality: iterability and presupposition. Iterability refers to the 'repeatability' of certain textual fragments…" (Porter 35). Within many Wikipedia articles iterability is undoubtedly apparent; especially on the page about the Fairy lorikeet. Many of the descriptions and facts about the bird species is repeated across multiple websites. Ultimately, after reviewing the information collaboratively provided by Wikipedia on the Fairy lorikeet webpage, I find all of the information I have fact-checked to be credible and reliable fragments of information.