More than half of college students frequently or always consult Wikipedia for course-related research, according to a report published in First Monday, an online, peer-reviewed journal. Only 22 percent of respondents to the survey said they rarely or never use Wikipedia. The study is based on responses from 2,318 students and qualitative data from 86 who participated in focus groups.
The most common reason that students reported using Wikipedia was to obtain background information or a summary about a topic and to get started with research. Only 16 percent of survey respondents said they used Wikipedia because of its wiki capabilities. Students were far more likely to use Wikipedia at the very begining or near the begining of research than at the end of the process.
The study also examined which students were most likely to use Wikipedia. Those majoring in architecture, engineering, or science were likelier than others to do so. The strongest predictor was the use of Google for course-related research. In addition, students at two-year colleges were less likely than those at four-year colleges to use Wikipedia. And students who reported consulting with librarians were less likely to use Wikipedia than other students were.
22 Responses to Students Use Wikipedia Early and Often
dr_redrum - March 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm
This actually sounds like good news. I was expecting to hear a “copy, cut and paste” story. Thanks, First Monday.
cherib - March 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm
It makes total sense to me. I rarely have a question where I don’t ask the “Internet Gods” for an answer. Wikipedia has done an amazing job of being the go-to place.On a related note, I wonder if students are aware about the wealth of information available to help them pick their degree, courses, professors, degree, etc. These kinds of decisions warrant research as well.Cheriwww.myedu.com
akprof - March 16, 2010 at 5:05 pm
On occasion, I have referred students to Wikipedia when what is needed is very basic information. The first time I did this, the students expressed shock – they had been prohibited from using this resource in other courses.
drexbee - March 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I personally prohibit students from using Wikipedia as a primary source for any assignment. My main reason for doing so is because of Wikipedia vandals and other motivated individuals who manipulate the site and submissions for their own ends. While they are free to use the site as a “jumping off point,” Wikipedia lacks, in my opinion, the veracity necessary to be a legitimate research source.If students wish to use Wikipedia, I demonstrate how they may use the often very legitimate sources contained at the bottom of most Wikipedia entries. I think most of us can agree that it can be a significant challenge to educate students on how to identify quality resource material, particularly when using electronic resources.
lilbrid2 - March 16, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Finding the basic lay of the land is the first step in any research. I am grateful for the instant access we all have to a wealth of basic information, without too much biased interpretation. The next steps are always critical analysis of these basics and finding more credible evidence to support one’s theories or arguments. Wikipedia fills the bill for a good first step.
arrive2__net - March 16, 2010 at 7:33 pm
I also like to use Wikipedia for casual reference, however … with students (as with adults) … it is a good idea to have some king of training concerning the “Wikipedia vandals and other motivated individuals who manipulate the site and submissions for their own ends”, as drexbee mentioned. Of course, the same kind of manipulation can go on in other media as well, but it can be especially severe in Wikipedia. Also, consider the law professor who played a little prank on his students ( http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Mischievous-Law-Prof-Texting/21629/ ). That story was an object lesson in checking your sources.Bernard SchusterArrive2.net
g8briel - March 16, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I find that people overstate the problem of vandalism on Wikipedia. It really isn’t that big of an issue and is typically so obvious as to be removed within seconds by “bots” designed to seek and destroy vandal edits by reverting to previous versions of entries. Wikipedia really is a good starting point for many topics, but, like many others, I wouldn’t encourage citing it in most instances. Not because it’s Wikipedia though. As a librarian I wouldn’t suggest citing Britannica in most instances either.What is needed is education that shows students how to critically evaluate the information in Wikipedia . . . and all sources for that matter.
tee_bee - March 16, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I use Wikipedia all the time when I want to learn something quickly–today I read an overview of “California English,” and use it when someone mentions a foreign city that I don’t know much about it. I don’t know why there’s such a fuss about it: I ban it as a source, but 20 years ago I banned the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source, too, refleccting what g8briel said. I don’t think it lacks the “veracity” [sic] of other sources, because the question isn’t “truth”as much as it is a question of thoroughness and depth. But, as others have said, it provides students with some jumping-off points, and if it gets them started (which it seems to do) then it’s just fine. Like the first commenter, this is good news, actually–students are at least looking for basic information to get started on their projects.
bookwormz - March 17, 2010 at 9:25 am
As a librarian at a small college, I get the opportunity to teach information literacy skills in all english composition classes. I tell the students to beware of Wikipedia not only because of the “vandalism” that can occur, but also – and I think more importantly – because of Wikipedia’s unattributed nature. Wikipedia is representative of a group mentality, or as my teenage daughter calls it, “the hive.” One of the first steps in learning how to evaluate a resource is understanding who wrote something and why. How can someone using Wikipedia determine any bias when you can’t determine authorship (or purpose)?
jbillington - March 17, 2010 at 9:38 am
Have there been academic studies about the veracity of wikipedia and the extent of manipulation? I’m sure there are cases and examples of it, but are they outliers or the norm? My guess is they are outliers but it would be good to see data on it and comparisons against other resources.
moorshaw1 - March 17, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I hate to seem like an old curmudgeon here, but the point of an undergraduate education is to learn how to do research using scholarly, peer reviewed work/research — Wikipedia is neither. There doesn’t need to be yet another academic study of an irrelevant subject that is plainly corruptible and not peer reviewed. Yes, Wikipedia is a good START for projects, but, as I remind my students, quoting Wikipedia in a research paper for me is an automatic ten-point penalty. Seriously, most of us reference Wikipedia like casual observers view car accidents and commercials that are sexually appealing: we don’t want to look, but just can seem to avert our eyes. But do I feel an irrepressible urge to tell collogues, my spouse, or share with students? Umm, no, certainly not.
rhetoricat - March 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm
One way to teach students how to use Wikipedia responsibly is to have them examine the source attributions/bibliography at the bottom of the entry. They can determine the degree of credibility based on those and sometimes locate additional sources. While I don’t forbid them to use Wikipedia, I do caution them that their ethos as writers and researchers is established partially based on the credibility of the sources that they use and using Wikipedia as a source is a sure way to undermine their ethos. They seem to understand the logic of this and don’t just assume that I’m having the knee-jerk reaction that many educators have when it comes to Wikipedia. Clearly, our students are going to use Wikipedia whether we want them to or not, so use it to your advantage. Have them fact check a Wikipedia entry and share their results with the class. They definitely need to learn how to determine the credibility of electronic resources, and this is a good starting point.
lcrandal - March 17, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Consulting Wikipedia is about as useful, and nearly as safe, as consulting any other encyclopedia as a source. It is a good way to get an overview of a topic. It may actually make students aware of issues or controversies that may need further research. It is not a substitute for the research. That said, those who ban it completely because it is electonic or wiki-based seem to me to be preparing their students to function in the twentieth century.
hansgustafson - March 17, 2010 at 2:27 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00
mccoyshelley - March 17, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Considering the current flap that has erupted in Texas regarding the history curriculum, I don’t think Wikipedia is any less trustworthy than any number of textbooks.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
ambouche - March 17, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Wikipedia use is a great entree to a discussion with students about the difference between “scholarly” and “non-scholarly” sources, and how to tell which is which. I teach my students to use the Wikipedia as I do, with caution, for ready reference and a ‘quick and dirty’ first orientation to any subject, checking it against other sources. And then I also teach them what peer-reviewed publications and scholarly internet sources are, and why they are so much more reliable than non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly sources. Simply banning Wikipedia (or any other accessible resource) doesn’t teach students how to be critical consumers of information. Besides, for some subjects the Wikipedia has excellent and up-to-date information.
kgschneider - March 17, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I teach students to use Wikipedia for developing ideas for research papers. I show them other sources, as well, but I feel it’s a good source for generating ideas and alternate terms, and topic after topic, I’m proven right. The example I use for “caveat lector” is not Wikipedia, but Opposing Viewpoints, where I ask students if a professor of government is qualified to write about gender studies. Wikipedia content certainly requires critical thinking, but “storebought” information isn’t exempt from my caution that “the most important database is the one between your ears.”
landrumkelly - March 17, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I encourage my students to contribute to Wikipedia–and then watch what happens to their entries. I think that this shows them how unreliable–but still useful–the site can be.I do not allow any encyclopedia–print or online–to be cited in a paper, and so Wikipedia has only limited utility. Within those limits it can be very helpful.To my colleagues I can only say that (1) it is not going to go away and (2) it can and will get better and better. I encourage them to help make it better by contributing. That said, it can be a most frustrating place to write about controversial topics, such as the ones that are of interest to me as a political theorist/philosopher working in a political science department.
timewaster123 - March 17, 2010 at 8:20 pm
I ask my students to use assigned articles and material from credible news sources such as WSJ, the New York Times, Economist, and so forth. Thus, they can certainly check a wiki for ideas, but they know they’re not going to be getting points for using it. (Not to mention the fact that if their writing starts to look fishy, it’s so easy for me to check whether they plagiarized from wikipedia.)
jonesinternet - March 22, 2010 at 7:30 am
Wikipedia is a great source. This research shows that each person may have a different method of conducting their research. If I want to confirm a subject exist to the point that I understand that it is real, I will continue to read. As absolute fact, some of which is subject. One addition to the common close only counts in” phrase: Horseshoes, hand-grenades, and Wikipedia???
fritzlerp - March 23, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Just to add my two cents here, it would be interesting to learn from the group surveyed if they thought it acceptable to use Wikipedia if they were tasked with a job-related project that required finding information rather than academic work.
jea_pody - April 4, 2010 at 11:34 am
Wikipedia is often incorrect in my experience and thus is not an acceptable resource for academic work. Beware the urge for a the quick-fix -