Thing 10 - Lots of Wiki in my life
Thing 10 is an exploration of wikis and what it can do for you and your organization… and since I use wikis constantly at my job, I am just going to say “yeah, wikis!” and move onto the source question…
Is Wikipedia a credible source and should it be prohibited from research? No, it is not credible and yes, it should be. Why so assertive? A Wiki lacks clear author and it always remains in a draft state. The whole point of citation is to demonstrate that the idea has merit and is complete in its argument. (It’s not just about giving credit where credit is due). Published articles, books, research, etc in a static format by a credited author or authors can result in some sort of merit being assigned to the work. Can a wiki ever say that the information is complete, is accountable to a specific review process, and can be verified by a responsible owner or administrator? Especially in the case of Wikipedia, I say no. That’s not to say that Wikipedia doesn’t have it’s place. It can be a fantastic INFORMAL reference tool. But in the eyes of research, a wiki does not provide a solid, credible source to base assertions.
