Encyclopaedias - Part Two: "Real" Enyclopaedias

Okay, so we've established that it's probably not a good idea to quote Wikipedia in your assignment.

But what about "real" encyclopaedias? What about Brittanica, Encarta and the rest?

Sadly, they're also on the list of things to avoid in an assignment.

Yes, I know that seems illogical. Sometimes the best information and quotes are in the encyclopaedia entry you found when you first started gathering information. Your lecturers still don't want you to use it.

Why? Well, there are a number of reasons:

• The information in encyclopaedias is fairly basic, and your lecturers want proof of a deeper level of research and understanding


• Using encyclopaedias is too easy. Someone else has done all the hard work of information gathering, but your lecturers want you to do that for yourself


• Tradition - encyclopaedias have never been accepted as a suitable source of information for academic research, so they probably never will


• Pride - we're too clever to resort to encyclopaedias

So, what should you do about encyclopaedias?

As I suggested in Part One, they do have their place in the research process. Look up your topic in an encyclopaedia to improve your basic knowledge, then use that basic knowledge to inform the rest of your research. You still won't be able to quote that fantastic sentence you found in the encyclopaedia entry, but you could probably use the "further reading" or "sources of information" section at the end of the entry to find something almost as useful.

Encyclopaedias - Part One: Wikipedia

"What's wrong with Wikipedia?"

It's a question I've heard a few times from various students over the years. It usually comes straight after I tell them they can't use Wikipedia for their research assignment.

There are a number of reasons for this. On one hand, the same problems exists for Wikipedia that you would find with any other encyclopaedia (see Part Two for more information).

On the other hand, Wikipedia has a few issues that are uniquely its own - and which put it far, far off the list of any serious research strategy.

The best advice I can give you is to think of Wikipedia as your Uncle Dave, who seems to know everything.

Sure, if you wanted to know something about the Great Wall of China, you could probably ask Dave, and there's a good chance he'll know the right answer. You still wouldn't cite him in your essay.

The Great Wall of China is one of the few ancient structures visible from orbit, according to my uncle, Dave.

There's also a good chance Dave might not be completely sure about what he's telling you, but he says it in such a way that he sounds convincing so you believe him anyway. If you use this information without checking it against a more authoritative source, you could end up making a fool of yourself.

As far as every lecturer and teacher on the planet is concerned, Wikipedia is as much an authoritative source on a given subject as your Uncle Dave. If you try to use it as a source for an assignment, you may as well kiss a handful of marks goodbye.

Does that mean you should never look at Wikipedia?

Not necessarily. Like "real" encyclopaedias it can give you some decent background information and point out some web pages and "further reading" that you actually can use for your assignment. But whatever you find on Wikipedia, treat it as if it came from Uncle Dave. Use it to help you know what you're looking for in "real" sources, but never try to use it as a source itself.

Remember, when you are researching an assignment, you need to find material that is authoritative, relevant, accurate and current. Wikipedia can never tick all of those boxes, so it's best to give it a miss.