April 4th, 2008
Wikipedia Holds Unique Place in Higher Ed
Wikipedia?? Really??
The Internet has without a doubt revolutionized the way that college students share information and ideas. In addition to email, chat rooms, and digital blackboards, websites such as Wikipedia are popular resources for anyone looking for info on an obsure German philosopher or the proper way to address a former Vice President in conversation (like that’ll ever happen).
Yet many people question the utility of user-generated information websites, and rightly so. Sites that allow anyone with a username and password to login and edit content should be viewed with a wary eye and taken with a grain of salt. According to the ‘nay-sayers,’ sites such as Wikipedia are never reliable and house only ‘less-than-scholarly’ material.
So, do the arguments of these skeptics hold water? Yes. And no.
With any source, you should both scrutinize and question its information to the best of your ability. If you’re writing a research paper on the uncertaintly principle or the eleven proposed dimensions in super-string theory, Wikipedia might not be your best best. Undoubtedly, only a handful of physicists across the globe have enough knowledge and know-how to discuss these topics at great length, let alone explain them to the public.
But if you want to gather some basic info on battle-torn Liberia, or to look up the name of President William Howard Taft’s grandfather, Wikipedia can be an excellent resource. Here’s why:
- Accessibility: With laptops that fit into envelopes and touch-screen cell phones smaller than Gideon Bibles, information is available from almost anywhere, at any time.
- Sources: Although articles on Wikipedia can be ’suspect,’ many provide a list of external sources where further information can be found. So while you might want to steer clear of citing Wikipedia in your footnotes, it could help you find a handful of high-reputable Web pages.
- Discourse: The fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article is distressing, but it’s also encouraging. Mark Wilson, a geology professor and blogger on Inside Higher Ed, actively edits content on Wikipedia, and calls on fellow academics to do the same. He admits that disagreement and argument will abound, but believes this will ultimately help to improve the all-around quality of the information available.
With live in a world where technology, knowledge, and education are intimately connected. Millions of college students are using the Internet not only to research, but to advertise their portfolios, apply for jobs, and even earn their degrees. Our mission, then, in my humble opinion, should be to use the resources at our disposal to make online learning as accessible, trustworthy, and valuable as possible. Wikipedia can be an excellent resource, if we help to make it one.
So what do you think of Wikipedia? Inquiring minds want to know.
This is a really interesting topic, and something’s that come up quite a few times in conversation lately. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, but I’m fully aware of the unreliability of the material on there. If I’m looking for some specific info regarding dates of events or names of people, or even the general explanation of some event, it’s an excellent source. And, as you said, it also links me to other sites that will get me more reliable information. The main problem is for the folks who aren’t discerning in their research — those of us (like my mother, for instance) who will take something that she reads online as the absolute truth. But as you already said, when you’re doing research, you always have to consider your sources–even when they’re published in a fancy, hard-cover book by a well-known author. What I think is good about Wikipedia is that many people are talking about its unreliability. Which means that many people are getting introduced to the idea that just because something is on the internet, doesn’t mean it should be taken at face value. What a concept! I know, duh, right? But for those of us who don’t quite understand the mantra “consider your sources,” all the talk about wikipedia seems like an excellent way to drive this concept home. I see thought bubbles forming over millions of heads: “if wikipedia isn’t reliable, then maybe other information sources (internet/television/radio) aren’t either…” Using wikipedia is not the question here, it’s knowing how to use any source that matters.
Comment by Nearly Graduated Office Worker — April 7, 2008 @ 11:58 am