Heather Rose photo Eleanor Riesen, an Algonquin professor, thinks Wikipedia should not be used for serious research.

Wikipedia is getting a rough ride as a credible online encyclopedia from some Algonquin professors who question its validity as a reliable source of information for students.

Eleanor Riesen, a professor of research methods in the one and two-year nursing program with the University of Ottawa and Algonquin, said that while she and her eight-year old used it for a school project just recently, it’s inappropriate for people at the college and university level.

“It gives some okay, basic information. The program I teach is actually a university program, taught here at the college but it’s a University of Ottawa nursing program, and I think [Wikipedia] is completely inappropriate for people at the university level,” said Riesen.

“I’m preparing nurses. When my students go to read the nursing research, it can influence how they behave as nurses. I sure don’t want them reading anything in Wikipedia influencing how they’d behave as nurses,” she said.

In 2005, the highly-regarded science journal Nature compared 42 natural sciences articles from both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The results stated that, “The difference in accuracy was not particularly great.” Nature found four inaccuracies in each Wikipedia article on average and about three in each Encyclopedia Britannica article, calling them “factual errors, misleading statements and omissions.”

Encyclopedia Britannica released a response to the study: “Almost everything about the journal’s investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading.”

The release argued against a few of the article’s supposed inaccuracies, stating some of it was a matter of personal opinion or disagreeing altogether, by pointing out that some of the articles weren’t from the Encyclopedia Britannica at all.

“I love the fact that Wikipedia engages people in the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge,” wrote Patricia Fraser, a professor of research at Algonquin College in an e-mail.

“And, people do love the feeling of being published, even in an online context.  As a researcher, the lack of credentials of the authors taints the whole enterprise for me.  Professionally, I need to know who wrote what and why I should believe them.  I want authorities who have published and paid their dues,” said Fraser.

Simon Pulsifer is an Ottawa-based Wikipedia contributor, and his vast contributions have been the subject of plentiful media attention. Pulsifer said while it is a fair source of information for college students, professors’ hesitations may be valid.

“I think they should have some hesitation and should think about it. I think students should definitely be aware of what it is,” said Pulsifer.

“I think complete bans on using Wikipedia are pointless, because students would use it anyway.”

He emphasized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such with regards to using it as the only source in any paper. Pulsifer mentioned that if a student were to hand in a big paper strictly sourced from Wikipedia, they should probably fail, but it would be the same with any encyclopedia.

“For a detailed paper you shouldn’t reply on Wikipedia. It’s sort of a secondary source or a tertiary source really,” he said.