When I first saw the title of the article, I immediately thought that Schiff was going to begin and end with bashing Wikipedia for its inaccuracies, the ability of just about anyone to edit it, and so forth. Gladly, she did not. Schiff made a great effort to begin with the good that Wikipedia provides and the quick access to general information that comes in handy. She even mentions that it got some things right that Encyclopedia Brittanica did not and has an entire webpage dedicated to that. She eventually gets to an interesting point that, while I had not thought about it before reading the article, really sums up Wikipedia’s shortcomings. When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of “But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.” Wikipedia, though, is only five years old. One day, it may grow up.
This is a fair argument. Certainly Wikipedia is very convenient for looking up who won the 1998 World Series or who invented the rubber band, but I would not trust it to provide accurate information when doing a paper or project. Even if I did, the fact remains that it is not a scholarly source, so it would be no use anyways. The idea that a ten year old from Nigeria can sit behind a computer screen and provide me with”psychoanalysis” of Stonewall Jackson doesn’t really conjure up confidence in Wikipedia.