Wikipedia? Credible? Really? I'm grappling here . . .

      Today, I learned that Wikipedia could potentially, maybe, help me here, still can't say it . . . .  might be accurate enough to use. GASP. WHEW. I feel dirty just saying that. 

      I sat in Jeff's MIT technology class today biting my tongue, wanting to ask him a million questions and what ifs, when it comes to the accuracy of Wikipedia. My furled eyebrows just might have given away my skepticism at some point during the class.  I'm a former hardcore journalist who covered everything from sports to education to city government. I was also a features editor who covered the lighter side of life, too.  We never, ever, ever (can't accentuate that enough) EVER, used Wikipedia; and if I ever saw any of my young reporters or freelancers gravitating that way, I persuaded them, with a horrified look, to search for bonafide sources. 

      As a reporter, it's serious business to have sources that walk, talk, breathe and answer a phone or a text. Background information has to a have a provable source. Quoting Wikipedia, or other dubious websites, is a huge no-no and that fact is beaten into us in Journalism 101, and the beating continues until graduation, and then follows us into the newsroom. In the news industry, it's just not considered reliable or credible because anyone can go in to write and edit at will. Perhaps, Wikipedia's greatest asset isn't its own writing then, but maybe the sources or references that come attached to the Wiki articles. I would not be opposed to going through those and checking the validity of the information those references contain. That can be a goldmine of information in one stop.

      I'm pretty firm in the fact I could never, and will never, use Wikipedia as a source for any freelance articles I might write, but what about for a student's school paper? What is the protocol these days? Do teachers shun the online encyclopedia, or are they warming to it? Do MIT professors OK the use of Wikipedia?  I honestly don't know.  This is something to learn as time goes on. Because there is always this: 

      How much more reliable is that textbook? For schools, that scenario is much worse than using Wikipedia. We have a textbook this semester that was created before Common Core came on the scene. I asked the professor about that, but it's such a minute part of the book, and the professor is educating the cohort on Common Core that it's not really an issue; but I did see what this meme is referencing firsthand just a matter of days ago. 

      I did learn today a lot about Wikipedia's grading system. I actually didn't even know there was such a thing and it was interesting to learn the checks and balances. This information is easily accessible under the "talk" tab and gives the reader a snapshot of the calibre of writing for each particular article. That's something to go on . . . right? 

      The jury is still out for me regarding grade school reports, but I'm flexible and I'd love to hear from teachers currently in the classroom as to their take before I slam the gavel on the final verdict. 

      But something to keep in mind, even Wikipedia doesn't think it's a reliable source: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Susan