Wikipedia – an unreliable source
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source” is a phrase we have all heard at least once in our lives. Even courts, such as the one referred to in the Washington Post Article, have rejected relying on Wikipedia as primary source for research. What is so unreliable about wikipedia though? The answer lies in an analysis of hubs and authorities.
When the Texas Court of Appeals, as discussed in the Washington Post article linked below, used a definition from Wikipedia to help resolve a case, people questioned Wikipedia’s reliability and examined the way Wikipedia receives its information. Anyone can write and edit information on Wikipedia. Furthermore, at the end of a Wikipedia page, numerous other outside sources are cited. While some believe this has its perks because it allows for information to be updated quickly, the ability of anyone to write on Wikipedia has consequences when computing its hub and authority scores.
A page’s authority score refers to the level of endorsement it gets from the web. It is computed by summing the hub scores of all pages that point to it. If it is widely believed that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because anyone can edit it, many other pages will steer clear from citing Wikipedia, resulting in the site having a low authority score.
On the other hand, a page’s hub score refers to its quality as a list and if the list points to many good authorities. A hub score is computed by summing the authority scores of all pages that it points to. Many of the sources that Wikipedia references are individuals, who do not have high authority scores since the only page that links to them is Wikipedia itself. Although Wikipedia cites other sources as well, some of which have high authority scores, its citing of many sources who have no authority scores diminishes its overall value.
Through this analysis, one can take away that the saying “wikipedia is unreliable” is not just a mantra; it is confirmed through analysis of hubs and authorities. The ability of anyone to edit the site causes harm to both Wikipedia’s hub and authority scores. So, the court did indeed have a point in rejecting the use of Wikipedia to prove a case and all of those teachers who have said to not cite Wikipedia did have a point after all.