The history department at Middlebury College in Vermont recently banned students from citing Wikipedia as a primary source in papers. But should a ban on something so widely used even be necessary?
It's true that Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate source. Microsoft recently paid people to change Wikipedia entries to make Microsoft products sound better. It's unnerving to realize that your 10-year-old cousin could hypothetically edit the entry on post-Civil War America based solely on information gained from watching too many episodes of "Wild Wild West" and no one could ever catch it.
On the other hand, Wikipedia isn't a total free-for-all. Other users can flag information as inaccurate and the company employs expert editors to check articles. Also, some articles are locked so only certain people can edit them.
Wikipedia can be an extremely valuable source when used properly. Although it probably shouldn't be used to get a comprehensive picture of Latin American politics, it is an outstanding jumping off point to start research with general information. It's also good for quick fact checks during all nighters. Less academically, it's also where to find out the name of an obscure TV character or what happened on the third episode of the last season of "Lost."
Bans of Wikipedia and other less traditional sources usually come from professors who think that only elitist journals and newspapers are credible sources. While Wikipedia and other newer, collaborative sources shouldn't be the only sources used for research, they aren't completely inaccurate or worthless.
A blanket ban of Wikipedia not only prohibits students from using an often valuable source, it indicates that the powers that be think they cannot make appropriate judgments about the validity of sources.
