Wikipedia is broadly misunderstood by teachers and students alike. While Wikipedia must be approached with caution, especially with articles that are covering contentious subjects or evolving events, it is often the best source to get a consensus viewpoint on a subject. Because the Wikipedia community has strict rules about sourcing facts to reliable sources, and because authors must adopt a neutral point of view, its articles are often the best available introduction to a subject on the web.

You may have heard in the past that you should avoid Wikipedia as a source. We (like Mike Caulfield) will instead encourage you to use Wikipedia, but to do so while recognizing both its strengths and its limitations. Most Wikipedia articles are highly accurate, as Wikipedia has editors who work to ensure that Wikipedia content adheres is its editorial practices, including providing evidentiary sources. Wikipedia articles that are longer and that are older tend to be of higher quality because they have been developed and improved over time by individuals who follow Wikipedia's best practices. That said, it's still true that someone can put inaccurate information on Wikipedia that is not immediately corrected. Wikipedia articles that are about contentious topics and that are undeveloped should be evaluated with greater care. You can also use the references at the end of a Wikipedia page to help you determine its level of accuracy.

But fact checkers use Wikipedia differently than many students do. They skip the main article and dive straight to references, where more established sources can be found. They know that the more controversial the topic, the more likely the entry is to be "protected" through the various locks Wikipedia applies to prevent changes by anyone except high-ranking editors. 

Fact checkers also know how to use a Wikipedia article's "Talk" page, the tab hiding in plain sight next to the main entry—a tab that few people know about, let alone consult. The “Talk” page is where an article's claims are established, disputed and, when the evidence merits, altered.

As with everything else we read online, it is vital that we think critically and assess Wikipedia articles. Thankfully, Wikipedia have made this easy for us be including some helpful tool to check reliability of content. Use the tips below as a checklist to help you assess a Wikipedia entry.

• Assess the article's quality
  • Check the article's grade on the article's talk page.
  • Is the article's topic explained well?
  • Are the Wikipedia style conventions followed? Is there an introductory paragraph? Is the article broken up into seperate sections?
  • Does the article provide in-line citations? Are the sources appropriate for the information in the article? Are the sources authoritative?

• Look at the article's history page and talk page
  • Check the article's creation date.
  • Look to see how many editors have contributed to the article. Has the article been created by only one or two people, or has it been a collaborative effort among many editors?
  • Has the article been subject to heavy or continued vandalism?
  • Have there been discussions about the article's validity?
  • Does the article appear to be controversial?

• Pay attention to the template messages that appear at the top of, or within, an article.
  • Make sure to read the template messages (the boxes at the top of the page or section) if they appear in Wikipedia articles. They can inform you of any issues with the article such as lack of references and sources, the presence of unverified or unreliable information, or if the article requires clean-up, etc.

Remember, Wikipedia articles can be a good starting point, but you should also be sure to use other, more scholarly sources of information as well.  Please use Wikipedia responsibly and wisely!