With the dread of potential research papers hanging over the heads of many students this early in a semester, many could face a potential problem with an online source that is readily accessible, easy to understand and could contain personal editorials over the prospective subject to be researched.

After developing the concept or tentative subject for collecting research, the first thing most students veer towards is the Internet.

With access to information courtesy of search engines like Google or Dogpile, many students encounter a free online encyclopedia named Wikipedia as a “hit” in regards to the items for which they were seeking. Everything on the site looks legitimate: facts seem accurate, dates appear true, but little do the surfers know that the information they are reading may in fact lead them innocently down the path of academic dishonesty.

Upon entering Wikipedia, one can read about various topics much like you would do whenever looking up information in an Encyclopedia Britannica at your local library. The information is generalized enough to where anyone with a limited level of education can understand the topics easily. After scrolling down to the end of the topic, which are often extensive and in-depth explorations of more than 3.2 million topics, a hyperlink exists that allows anyone with some computer language savvy and an opinion to modify the information available to the masses. This little hyperlink has begun the controversy for many scholars, print media and broadcast media because the information they cited as a general source for their information may have been inaccurate, untrue and politically influenced.

In a recent article written by Rachel Aviv of the Village Voice, the phenomenon of Wikipedia was put into perspective as it is the “19th-most-visited-web-site in the world” and can also boast having “more daily visitors than The New York Times and USA Today combined.” In Aviv’s article, Robert McHenry puts it all into perspective by saying that Wikipedia is very similar to a public restroom because there is no way of knowing who has used it before you. “It’s like, ‘Let’s play the encyclopedia game, kids!’ But to take the product of this game and call it an encyclopedia—that’s where the deception comes in. The project is anti-educational, anti-science, and anti–everything that I think is a value,” McHenry said.

Dr. Lynn Alexander, UTM’s chair of the English department, said that “Wikipedia is a weak source.” She says students can obtain general information from this source, much like they would with a regular encyclopedia at the library, and use it as a “starting point” for beginning to collect credible sources.

“It’s an interesting thing because it was completely open at first. I like the idea of ‘pooling knowledge’ but it needs more checks and balances,” Alexander said.

Alexander offers tips to students who are in need of help whenever the time comes to sift through the overwhelming amount of online sources:

• “Never go to just one source; even for general information. You need about two or three sources just to check the information. If those sources say basically the same thing, the information is probably correct.”

• “Look to see who’s managing the site by looking at the end of the website address. .edu usually is affiliated with a university or college and hopefully representative of scholastic thinking. .com is representing a business that more than likely wants to sell you something. .org means that information from this site is coming from a non-profit organization and usually a credible source.”

• “Look for a site or two that will send you to something in print. There is more information with print because online sources are simplified a bit for general statements and there is a loss of detail.”

• “Start at a library, electronic databases, a card catalog and bibliographies. Look at the sources to see if they also work with your subject. The research of others can be a springboard for your own research.”

To contrast the somewhat open views of the Wikipedia phenomenon, Dr. Michelle Merwin of the Psychology Department said, “There has to be some integrity to our knowledge. Otherwise, everything is relative. The fact that it is not rigorously reviewed, and is edited by the public really lessens its value in my eyes.” For her research, Merwin relies on journals in print or archived online that have been reviewed by psychology peers, which means that the information is more sophisticated and representing people who “should know more” than any sidewalk psychologist or undergraduate student.

When asked whether she would allow her student to use Wikipedia or similar public domain sources, Merwin said, “No. Emphatically no. I forbid it.” She feels that using the Internet as a means of sources for research driven papers will cause students to believe the information they are receiving to be accurate and valid.

Merwin said, “I think this is the challenge to contemporary students and those to come. Many people today think that everyone’s opinion has equal validity. This is simply not true. We need to teach our students to discern a good source from a weak source.”

Teaching students psychological theories and concepts is not the only job Dr. Merwin is responsible for. She and her colleagues assist students in achieving their goals of going on to graduate school and continuing their education to become part of the elite. In order for this to happen, it is her duty to assist the students on their journey.

Merwin feels that Wikipedia is “the lowest common denominator” in terms of research and that is not what she wants her students using because it wouldn’t be beneficial for them in their future collegiate and professional careers.

Cal Sullivan, a sophomore Health and Human Performance Major, checks the credibility of the author on many of his research sources. Not only does he look to see the degrees in the person’s field, but also looks at any previous work, reviews of those works, and the overall popularity of the works. Sullivan said, “If a lot of people are using it, chances are there’s got to be some reason why they’re using it.” Another identifier for a good source has to be a lot of facts that are straightforward, according to Sullivan. Most of the sources he uses for research papers are from the Internet but he has been known to peruse through the library once or twice.

“Books are easier to find the information than trying to find online because you are battling with pop-ups and other junk,” said Sullivan. The media especially are required by libel laws to ensure the information being used in any of their outlets to be accurate to the best of their knowledge. Otherwise, legal action can be taken against the media.

With so many people changing content in order to sabotage or include political commentary on a specific subject, how can anyone be sure that the information is ever true?

The definition of public domain, according to the Wikipedia website on the subject, clearly says that “The public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit.”

When the credibility of a source is in doubt, contains insufficient information or is gramattically wrong, Wikipedia administrators tag the encyclopedia entry as questionable and advise users to use caution. However, not all errors are so readily tagged.

With so much information out there to be used, cited and reviewed, students deserve to know that the information they are using could be a matter of someones personal opinion, rather than common knowledge. Administrators and professors alike are experiencing a new monster whenever the issue of Internet sources are used in academic research for their own personal use as well as their students. How can they include everyone in every possible situation in order to establish one set rule in regards to keeping everyone honest and credible on any research work?

This is a feat yet to be conquered by professors as a means of one united consensus regarding public domain encyclopedias and other Internet works. In order to better protect the integrity of the students conducting research, Dr. Alexander recommends that if you so choose to use an online source that may update or be changed entirely, print out a hard copy for your own benefit in case of any quesitoning or problems that may arise from these “static sources.”

Alexander said she will not grade a paper differently if Wikipedia is used and listed correctly as a background source in a students work.

On the other hand, Dr. Merwin says, “Once I’ve said in class that Wikipedia is not a valid source, if a student uses it, I will grade their work harshly. Fluid, changing and written by the public without peer review is enough for me to not allow it.”

When using someone’s words, students fear plagairsm and this online encyclopedia can cause more professors to feel that students should avoid using it altogether because of the changing nature of this public domain source.

Wikipedia is the headline project of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that administers Wikipedia and its cousins, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikisource and Wikinews. It is available in more than 200 languages.

Editor's note: Robert McHenry, who was cited as a source in this report, is the former editor for the Encyclopedia Britannica.