Reliable Source?

Visitors from all over the world see classic artworks at England’s Tate museums, one of the UK’s leading art institutions. But art historian Bendor Grosvenor recently noticed that some content on the Tate’s website isn’t original: The site features Wikipedia articles for some artists’ biographies.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to and modify. It has more than 40 million entries in more than 290 languages, providing people with quick, easy access to information—but there’s no guarantee it’s accurate. Experts in many fields discourage using the site for research. Grosvenor found that some of Wikipedia’s content on the Tate’s site contains errors and trivial facts of no historical importance.

He shared his concerns on Twitter, prompting many others to voice their own frustrations. They argue that people browsing the Tate’s website expect facts and informed, professional research. A Tate spokesperson replied to Grosvenor stating that the institution doesn’t have the resources to write original biographies for every artist in its collection. The spokesperson added that other cultural institutions supplement their online materials with Wikipedia or similar sources. But Grosvenor notes that this is untrue for most other prestigious museums, such as the Louvre in Paris or the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Should reputable institutions like the Tate use Wikipedia in place of academic sources?