Memo #7-Wikipedia is not a credible source (Depending on how you use it).
Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. Wikipedia will provide quick-hit answers to questions in the legal, technical and pop-culture fields. The answers tend to be correct and the sourcing at the end of each article can be the start of fruitful research project. If that is how one plans to use Wikipedia, the basis for a larger research project and the starting point for relevant sources, then yes, Wikipedia is a credible source. But if a person wishes to cite to a Wikipedia article for support in a paper or project, then no, it is not a credible source. As it is in most questions I have approahced in law school, the answer depends...

Why is it not a credible source for citation in a paper or a research project? The answer lies in the very nature of the program. It is open to everyone. In July of 2006, New Yorker writer Stacey Schiff, examined the Wikipedia phenomonon. Her article forms the basis for this opinion. The first amazing quality of Wikipedia, which in turn is the first reason why it is not credible, is that there are five employees besides the founder, Jimmy Wales. Five employees; that is it. All other content and editorial control comes from the users. User creation and editing of content allows the site to run with just five employees, but it also invites unscrupulous actions. According to Schiff, U.S. senators have been caught massasging their own entries in order to santize voting records, refine their stance on issues, or to distance themselves from an unpopular president. In fact, the entire House of Representatives have been banned, at different points, from posting for the same reasons. If there are major question marks regarding the wikipedia entries for Senators and U.S. Represenataives, then it is hard to implicitly trust the information found in other entries.

The second reason stemming from the open nature of the site is that changes are not automatically vetted by the editorial “staff”, made up of administration level users who can enforce the site’s standards. Schiff points out an article on the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah that has been edited over 4,000 times and draws the interest of writers and editors. Thus, one could call this article a credible source because it is consistently being vetted. However, one of the attractions of Wikipedia is that there are articles on just about anything that strikes your interest. These obscure entries can be edited multiple times by people without ever being checked to ensure they meet the standards of the site. If the article is inaccurate, and remains so for an extended period of time, then it cannot be a credible source.

Finally, a recent development in the wake of the Schiff article has forced me to conclude that the site is not an appropriate source. In preparing for the story, Schiff was contacted by a Wiki Administrator, identified only by the person’s screen name. In conversations, Schiff was led to believe that the administrator was a college professor with a Ph.D. in theology. In fact, the person was a 24-year old with no connection to teaching and with no advance degrees. If an administrator is lying about his identity, then the credibility of the source must be questioned.

So, if you are looking to use Wikipedia as a initial source for research, following the included citations out into the larger Internet, then use Wikipedia. I just can’t see anyone actually citing it as a stand-alone, legitimate site.