The Internet has revolutionized the way we do research today. The days of spending hours inside a library looking for the perfect book for a paper assignment are over.  The accessibility of databases, journals and books published online has helped reduce the time it takes to do the same research in a library. 
Sometimes, though, quality information does not necessarily have to be found through these mediums. Often, I find what I am looking for is right under my nose in a website that has been harshly criticized for its inconsistencies: Wikipedia. 
I cannot even begin to describe how many times I have Googled a person, place or event I wanted to learn about and the first search result was from an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides all of the general information I need to know about a certain subject. However, as a research tool, this online encyclopedia has earned a reputation among many as an unreliable, illegitimate source. 
This reputation has stemmed from the ease with which a Wiki page can be edited. Anybody, even those without an account, can go in and edit the information on a certain topic, but many assume these changes are usually inaccurate or just plain wrong. We fail to realize that just as easily as someone can alter the information, someone can immediately change it back.
Surely you have heard the saying “Two minds are better than one.” This idea seems to encompass what founder Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created this site.  With Wikipedia, the idea is to take knowledge and information from the collaboration of many minds to constantly improve the website.  New suggestions, current events and research are added daily to provide the best information possible to promote learning and understanding on a variety of topics.
A list of references from where the information on that particular page came can be found at the bottom of each Wiki page. As long as the ideas are properly cited, why shouldn’t I trust what I find on the page? Wikipedia administrators are constantly monitoring the edits people make to ensure the changes are reasonable. 
In fact, certain controversial pages are “protected,” meaning they cannot be edited at all.  According to a NYTimes.comarticle published online in 2006, topics that are frequently vandalized become “protected” to prevent people from having editing wars online. In my experience with Wikipedia, I have found it often contains all of the broad information I need on a topic.  Wikipedia is essentially the chapter summary or the SparkNotes of everything we want to know about ideas in our life.
It may not contain breakthrough information about rocket science or astrophysics, but it can provide the definition of these subjects, the origin, significant contributors to the field and can often direct me to a more specific source to help me find what I am looking for.
Sure, Wikipedia is always going to have some flaws, but I do not find the website as a whole has received the credit it deserves.  According to the same aforementionedNYTimes.comarticle, Nielsen NetRatings found Wikipedia to be the web’s “third-most popular news and information source.” Obviously, this website is doing something right to get that kind of recognition.
Now, I don’t suggest writing your next research paper solely from what you find on Wikipedia, but I think it is a good starting place to find background information on the topic you are learning. Professors who are strong advocates against this website should consider taking a second look at how Wikipedia can make the learning process easier for students.  I have learned a lot from this site; you can, too, if you give it a chance. Megan McKeown is a junior majoring in communication. She can be contacted at [email protected].