Each fall, we students partake in a cathartic transition from summer love back to the rigor and routine of school. Freshmen throw frisbees in front of Appel, juniors and seniors (and some older looking sophomores) partake in the drunken debauchery of the Collegetown bars, and professors do their best to remind us that we’re supposed to be mature young adults focused on earning undergraduate degrees. And like clockwork, students turn to the many controversial and questionable study practices, including (but not limited to) SparkNotes, CourseHero and, of course, the powerhouse Wikipedia.

Time and again, professors will warn students at the onset of their course that Wikipedia usage is punished with an F, expulsion from Cornell, banishment from Tompkins county and occasional dismemberment (if the transgression is severe enough). Obviously, Cornell students ignore this advice as routinely as we complain about the weather. Wikipedia not only serves as an academic aide to the large majority of students across the country; it is also a tool often used to resolve arguments, research a favorite athlete/pop star/potentate or simply pass the time. In order to judge the merits of one of the most visited web sites of the world, I started my research … at Wikipedia.

A collaborative encyclopedia has obvious advantages and disadvantages, practically and pedantically. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia has an unlimited number of authors, is updated every second of every day and covers the broadest amalgamation of content of any comparable source. On the flip side, Wikipedia’s greatest strength is also its Achilles heel. Any bum with a dial-up connection can become your lifeline on everything from Banana Boats to Botchulism. Wikipedia hater and former Encyclopedia Britannica editor Robert McHenry poetically compared the user-generated encyclopedia to a public restroom: “It may be obviously dirty, so that [the user] knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.” The editors of the establishment encyclopedias seem to think that Wikipedia’s articles truly are crap. Yet numerous studies have found that traditional encyclopedias are plagued by errors as extensive and pervasive as those found in the average Wikipedia article.

The website itself warns users that its “radical openness” makes it more vulnerable than traditional reference sources to vandalism. But like the many double-edged swords of Wikipedia, its weakness is also a strength. Some have sought to misuse Wikipedia to smear political rivals, editorialize current events or simply to lie for a prank or otherwise. But for every one person bored enough to change Stalin’s birthplace to Oklahoma City there are ten readers who will see the error and correct it within hours of the offending alteration.

Wikipedia’s approval-by-consensus format has led some to criticize its articles as reflections of intuition and general understanding rather than fact and subtle distinction. Stephen Colbert did a segment in which he coined the term “wikiality” (a portmanteau of Wikipedia and reality) to mockingly support Wikipedia’s embrace of his own “truthiness” philosophy: “Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn’t, that’s my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it’s also a fact.” Although a large majority of Wikipedia’s articles remain open to user edits and submissions, Wikipedia has initiated several safeguards to control the content of pages. Wikipedia often bans users who are found to have tampered with pages, and more popular entries like George Washington are locked from public edits in order to protect them from vandalism. But Wikipedia’s true value comes in its transparency and comprehensiveness.

How cool is it that students can read about Louie’s Lunch Truck in an encyclopedia article format? In one sitting I read up on the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem to help me understand my math homework, and smoothly transitioned to a synopsis of R Kelly’s hip-hop opera (hip-hopera?) Trapped in the Closet. I don’t know any other source that can inform you on both Jungian Archetypes and jungle juice. Unlike a traditional encyclopedic entry, one can understand the history of the Napoleonic wars more fully by following Wikipedia’s hundreds of links to in-depth explanations of the important players and historical context of each entity. Wikipedia isn’t just for the lazy soul in search of a book report summary. Rather, it is for that curious student who wants to spend hours exploring the arsenal of articles explaining a battle’s consequences and significance.

The simple criticism that Wikipedia can be misleading or apocryphal is easily faced: One cannot use Wikipedia as a primary source or the only source of information. At the bottom of every article, there is a section that presents external links, references and even a bibliography. It isn’t necessary to trust an article on its own merits, but each piece can point you in the right direction. Wikipedia operates on a truth by consensus nature, so everyone will periodically agree on a wrong answer. But used as a jumping off point, it is invaluable. With its extensive library of citations and contributions from experts of the esoteric, Wikipedia is an invaluable tool for studying at Cornell.

Gabriel Dobbs is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at gdobbs@cornellsun.com. Smooth and Confident appears alternate Fridays this semester.