Assistant News EditorBeginning this spring semester, the Middlebury College History Department has banned citing Wikipedia as a primary source. Although it is still acceptable for researching background information, members of the department unanimously agree that, as a main source, it is unreliable.
The chairman of Middlebury’s history department, Don J. Wyatt, said, “We all are sort of enamored of the convenience and speed of the Web. From the standpoint of access, it’s a marvelous thing. But from the standpoint of maintaining quality, it’s much less so.”
The attraction of Wikipedia can be attributed to its easy access. However, it is this same accessibility that is responsible for its unreliable quantities: Anyone with access to the Internet can edit the articles, enter false information and have it accepted as truth by the many students using the online encyclopedia.
Vassar History Department Chair Rebecca Edwards sympathized with Middlebury’s decision. “Wikipedia is written today, and is thus at best a ‘secondary source,’ the equivalent of an encyclopedia or history textbook,” she said. “Since anyone can edit it, however, it is not guaranteed to be accurate or reliable.”
The question that arise, then, is whether or not a similar policy might be necessary at Vassar.
At this point in time, the general consensus seems to be that it is not. Reference Librarian Gretchen Lieb said, “I can understand why Middlebury would have taken those steps, but I don’t think [Vassar] has to do it,” she said. “Students know better than to use it as a primary source. It is okay to look at, but not rely on.”
Most Vassar students seem to be of a similar opinion. David Prentice ’10, said, “I use it a lot for background information but obviously I know I need other sources for a quality paper.”
Margaret Dwyr ’09 echoed similar concerns about the site’s inconsistencies. “Anyone can contribute Wikipedia,” she said, “so you don’t if what you’re getting is actual real information.”