| title | Rhetorical analysis of Reliability of Wikipedia from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|---|---|
| author | Tibet Tornaci |
According to themselves, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." According to web traffic analysis firm Alexa Internet, wikipedia.org ranks 13th in global internet engagement.1 This is in contrast to the online version of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which ranks in at number 690 in the same metric.2
Because of this popularity, in tandem with its anonymous and crowdsourced model, Wikipedia has been labeled by many academics and educators as an unreliable source. Because of this, the Wikipedia contributors decided to create an article, Reliability of Wikipedia, in order to address these concerns.
The article is logically split into various sections and subsections in order to increase its navigability:
- Wikipedia editing model, which gives a beginner-friendly introduction to how Wikipedia works.
- Assessments, which goes over surveys, studies, and other expert opinions on the reliability of Wikipedia.
- Propagation of Misinformation, which goes over cases in which incorrect information on Wikipedia is disseminated on other websites and publications.
- Notable incidents, which goes over notable instances of misinformation on Wikipedia.
- See also, which is a list of related Wikipedia articles.
- References, which is a list of citations.
- Further reading and External links, which are lists of related external sources.
These sections address all three components of the Aristotelean Triangle: Wikipedia editing model addresses pathos by introducing the reader to the inner workings of Wikipedia, while Assessments and References address ethos and logos by citing expert and academic views on Wikipedia's reliability.
As of writing, this article contains 267 citations, all of which citations are easily accessible thanks to footnotes where they are relevant. All citations have basic info like the author and publication date, the date the source was accessed. Direct links to a backup on the Internet Archive are also provided, in case the original goes down or otherwise becomes inaccessible.
The sources cited range from Nature, a widely respected and peer-reviewed scientific journal, to the Encyclopædia Britannica, to Vice News and The Guardian, and even the web comic xkcd.
The article also does not present Wikipedia as being an authoritative source, paraphrasing co-founder Jimmy Wales' assertion that "encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as being authoritative."3 It also repeatedly highlights problems with the model, such as omission of facts and bias, as well as successes of the model like the breadth of coverage and similar accuracy to traditional encyclopedias.
As this is an encyclopedia article, and as recommended by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, a neutral tone is maintained throughout, regardless of whether Wikipedia is being praised or criticized.
One section is a description of the Wikipedia editing model, which is important as the intended audience does not know the inner workings of Wikipedia, beyond it being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This section gives the reader valuable insight into how anonymous editors are "some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content" and gives us an understanding of the scope of the project, spanning 19 million articles across 280 different languages.
The article makes the reader think about two main questions: "Is Wikipedia a reliable source?" and "Are other encyclopedias reliable sources?" It presents no concrete answer on the reliability of Wikipedia, but its mere existence on the platform suggests that Wikipedia is a reliable, or at least unbiased source.
I think the reader is supposed to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is generally as reliable as other encyclopedias, but both traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia have their respective shortfalls. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone anonymously and misinformation often goes unnoticed. In contrast, with a traditional encyclopedia, only a small group of vetted editors can edit, so they are regarded as being infallible by some.