Ferdinand Magellan and his voyage around the world

¶ … Ferdinand Magellan

There is a substantial amount of controversy regarding the use of Wikipedia for research purposes. Because Wikipedia allows users to contribute information, it can contain inaccurate or biased information. This is probably the largest complaint that academics have about Wikipedia. However, that complaint is also true of many primary and secondary sources which are considered acceptable in academic circles. While Wikipedia's openness provides ample opportunity for bias or misinformation, it also provides the user with information about the article, which might not be found in other forms of media. For example, users can indicate whether they feel that an article is biased, and users can look at the history of an article, view discussions that have shaped the current version of the article, and see questions and concerns raised by other users. These features are not found in other forms of media, and can actually give users a better opportunity to evaluate bias than traditional media. However, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia articles draw information from primary and secondary sources. However, unlike many encyclopedias, the better articles in Wikipedia provide excellent references, many times including links to secondary sources, which can assist a researcher who is looking for sources. As a result, it is inappropriate to suggest that Wikipedia cannot play a role in responsible research.

Wikipedia's article on Ferdinand Magellan highlights many of the better aspects of Wikipedia. First, the article seems to be wholly supported by credible evidence. There is nothing in the article that appears to be the author's opinion. That is not the same as suggesting that the article represents the absolute truth. For example, in the discussion forums devoted to the article's development, one user highlights concerns that some of the facts in the article may be incorrect due to an error in a primary source document. However, it seems to be a credit to Wikipedia that its users can find out information such as a contested primary source document, which might not be available if a researcher were relying solely on primary and older secondary documents.

The authors of the article relied on several credible sources to compile their article. For example, one of the sources cited is a first-hand account of Magellan's voyage. In addition, the authors recommend other first-hand accounts as additional reading. Because the number of contemporaneous accounts is somewhat limited, the use of these sources is significant. However, the authors also use a number of secondary sources. The use of secondary sources can be as critical as the use of primary sources, because secondary sources can oftentimes provide important historical context, which may be missing in primary source documents. The sources are properly cited, though they do not contain information about the authors of the secondary sources. In this instance, an annotated bibliography might be helpful. However, many of the secondary sources are available online. For those that are not, Wikipedia standards mean that the references almost always contain sufficient information to find the reference in question. This may be even more useful than an annotated bibliography, because annotated bibliographies invite the same type of bias as any other writing. Referring users directly to the source gives users the opportunity to independently evaluate a source's credibility and utility.