Can we cite Wikipedia? What if Wikipedia was more reliable than its detractors ?
Mohamed El Louadi
TL;DR
The paper tackles the question of whether Wikipedia can be cited given reliability concerns, arguing that an outdated epistemology underestimates its verification, update, and transparency mechanisms. It juxtaposes Wikipedia with traditional publishing, highlighting systemic flaws and errors across both domains, and proposes a contextual reliability framework and a pragmatic epistemology for source use. It emphasizes Wikipedia's ongoing quality-control processes and popularity-driven monitoring as strengths, while acknowledging demographic biases and susceptibility to manipulation. It also examines the AI era's impact on source creation and evaluation, advocating integrated, critical use of digital sources in scholarly practice.
Abstract
Wikipedia, a widely successful encyclopedia recognized in academic circles and used by both students and professors alike, has led educators to question whether it can be cited as an information source, given its widespread use for this very purpose. The dilemma quickly emerged: if Wikipedia has become the go-to information source for so many, why can't it be cited? If consulting and using Wikipedia as a source of information is permitted, why does it become controversial the moment one attempts to cite it? This manuscript examines the systematic rejection of Wikipedia in academic settings, not to argue for its legitimacy as a source, but to demonstrate that its reliability is often underestimated while traditional academic sources enjoy disproportionate credibility, despite their increasingly apparent shortcomings. The central thesis posits that Wikipedia's rejection stems from an outdated epistemological bias that overlooks both the project's verification mechanisms and the structural crises affecting scientific publishing.