The growing popularity of the Wiki movement has brought online research into a widespread conundrum. On the one hand, Wikis make it possible for people to browse online encyclopedic resources for free. On the other hand, in the classic Wiki mode, anyone can make a contribution to a Wiki so you have no way of knowing how reliable the information is.
Wikis can be useful for quick checks of explicit facts such as names. What was the name of Gil-galad’s spear? Some people may know it was called Aeglos off the top of their heads, but other people may need to look it up. A Wiki or an encyclopedia project can usually spell the names correctly. But their reliability and credibility ends there.
There are some very good Wikis on the Web. Wikipedia, the most well-known and most popular, is by no means among the better selections when it comes to fictional universes. But all of the Wiki sites that rely upon visitor contributions are vulnerable to the same potential abuses as well as the political infighting that inevitably crops up in any communal project.
There are no guarantees that a Wiki article will read the same way today as it did yesterday, or that it will remain carved in stone. Nor can you be assured that an article will continue to exist, won’t be divided into other articles, or renamed or reclassified.
The intent of the Wiki founders, the extent of their knowledge, and the care with which they watch edits and contributions don’t change the nature of the beast. You the researcher need not only to use quality sources of information, you need stable sources of information. As you publish your research and people become aware of it, there will be challenges to your summations and conclusions.
Challenges are normal and healthy. They force us to reconsider what we have said, to look at the facts again, and to seek out new sources of information. But research needs to document sources, and you may not only find yourself linking to an incorrect source if you link to a community-driven site, you may find yourself using a contrary point-of-view as support for your arguments. You’ll look foolish and incompetent.
The Wikis are therefore among the worst possible sources of information that researchers can use. When you construct an argument, if you link to a Wiki, link to the specific version (if that is captured and made available) of the article you use. Do not link to the main article name space. This practice may be questioned or challenged by Wiki operators, but since their projects are constantly changing, your research becomes immediately invalidated with the next direct update to an article you cite.