As the years go by and Wikipedia continues to grow in scope and size, it has emerged as a great paradox of the digital age. Although the site, which turns 12 years old in January, is far and away the most expansive reference work in the world and is available in over 200 languages, it has been unable to find good standing in the academic community as a credible source. It is certainly understandable that academia would be leery of a source open to editing by anybody in the world. However, Wikipedia is showing signs that it has begun to outgrow its reputation as a haven for vandalism, slanted rhetoric, and misinformation. While the transition won’t be easy, it may be time for some educators to begin to reconsider their ban on the informational juggernaut.

An Oct. 25 article in The Atlantic entitled “Surmounting the Insurmountable: Wikipedia Is Nearing Completion” makes the claim that Wikipedia is reaching the end of its developmental stage, and a great many of its articles are nearing completion. Of course, this holds only for entries whose content remains static; those covering topics of a historical nature or certain areas of science. The article points to the Wikipedia page on the War of 1812 as a prime example. The bulk of  this 14,000 word entry was written in 2006. Since then, users have continued to make edits and dispute various points on the entry’s 200,000-word discussion page. In 2008, there were 256 users actively editing the page; today, this number has dwindled to 28.

This decline indicates not a decreased interest, but an equilibrium which has been reached within an article where nearly all questionable facts have been verified, nearly all debatable points have been debated, and nearly all contentious language has been sifted out by the spectrum of backgrounds and political views reflected in the editor-base. This equilibrium is the essence of crowd-sourcing, combing over the individual’s biases and resulting in a product that satisfies all parties. It is in this sense that an article can be considered completed.

The use of the word ‘completion’ here must come with a caveat. By its nature, Wikipedia is a living body of work that is constantly expanding and updating. Developments in the news typically generate their own respective entries in very little time, and the related discussion pages are constantly active for those articles which do continue to change. For these active pages, equilibrium cannot be reached, as each development brings with it a new set of discussions and deliberations. In this respect, they can never be ‘completed’ in any real sense. ‘Completion,’ in the context of Wikipedia, refers to the point where the site need only keep up with the world’s information, rather than catch up with it.

The next step for Wikipedia, as The Atlantic piece correctly asserts, is to bolster its wealth of information with credible academic citations. Additionally, articles that are strictly historical and have shown a decrease in editing should be ‘semi-protected’—a term on Wikipedia which restricts editing privileges to registered users only. This greatly reduces the likelihood of vandalism, or of somebody editing without consulting the talk page. These stabilizing policies would lend Wikipedia much needed legitimacy in academic circles.

Beyond the fear of inaccuracy, there are very few reasons for the academic world not to embrace Wikipedia. It doesn’t infringe on any existing informational sources, as it doesn’t offer enough of a breakdown on topics to serve as a replacement for textbooks, nor does it offer critical analysis in the same way that a scholarly article does. Wikipedia would exist within academia simply as a foundational core of facts and figures on a wealth of topics, a more thorough version of a traditional encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, the site’s use will continue to meet resistance because it does infringe on one critical deep-seated aspect of academia: elitism. The world of academia exists, as it always has, as a hierarchical structure. Credibility is measured largely by individual accomplishment, publications, tenure,  and seniority. What Wikipedia represents is the notion that credibility can exist in the collective. Although its editor-base includes academics and other qualified individuals, its credibility is not quantifiable. For the academic community to acknowledge its legitimacy would be an admission that knowledge does not belong exclusively to institutions of higher learning.

Academia should acquiesce to the powerful collaborative tools such as Wikipedia. However, in a realm that is not known for its acceptance of change, I wouldn’t hold my breath.