Wikipedia: Beat It, Join It, or Ignore It?

Thursday, October 26, at 3 p.m., U.S. Eastern time

Alexander M.C. Halavais is an assistant professor at Quinnipiac University, where he teaches in a master's program in interactive communications. He has published articles and book chapters on the role of computing in social change. While teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo, he assumed a false identity and slipped 13 errors into various Wikipedia articles. Less than three hours after he posted the errors, all of them had been deleted.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Brock Read (Moderator):
    Good afternoon, all. I'm very happy to have Alex Halavais, an assistant professor at Quinnipiac University and a scholar of social architecture, with us for today's discussion of Wikipedia. I'd like to thank Alex for chatting with us. We're having minor technical difficulties, but we'll get started shortly.

Question from Robert Cathey, McCormick Theological Seminary, Hyde Park, Chicago, IL:
    Should scholars prohibit the use of Wikipedia in citations in research papers and other media where students present their research into various topics?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Probably, but only because it is an encyclopedia. That is, it's easy to conflate the "Is Wikipedia citable?" question with the "Should students be citing encyclopedias?" From (at least) high school on, we explain to students what appropriate sources are. Making clear that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such not appropriate for citation in most cases. We should also teach our students to be critical of all their sources, including reference sources.

Brock Read (Moderator):
    Okay, our technical difficulties seem to have been cleared up. So feel free to submit questions, and thanks for bearing with us.

Question from Bob, medical school in Massachusetts:
    Could it be that the quest for "authority" in Wikipedia is missing the point? After all, should we confer authority on Encyclopedia Britannica? Shouldn't any good encyclopedia provide an overview of a topic and point us to the "real" authoritative sources?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    "Authority" is a sticky word! Just because it points you to other materials doesn't diminish the need for a trustworthy or effective source; it's still a matter of selection. Of course, one of the things we hope any good encyclopedia will do is point us toward other sources. But many want the "common sense" or basic facts without having to dig much deeper than that. To give an example, a student in a class last night wanted to find the meaning of the title "Ayatollah" (prompted by N. Postman), and Wikipedia is the appropriate source for something like that. A second issue is one of access: many "authoritative" texts are not open access, and that speed bump may be enough to bring many (most?) searchers to a halt.

Question from Sara, online university:
    Do you think that you were caught because you submitted 13 changes all at once? If you had snuck the 13 changes in over time under different identities, would that make a difference?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Yep, I think that this had a lot to do with it. I still think some of the more obscure items would have stuck if they hadn't been linked back. But, I was convinced enough by the discussions that followed that continuing to "destructively test" was probably the wrong way to go.

Question from Brock Read:
    I'm assuming a number of scholars have heard about the Nature article that compared Wikipedia favorably to Britannica in its coverage of scientific topics. Has the Nature study helped improve Wikipedia's reputation in academe?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I'm sure it has. Despite the ongoing debate as to how fair or effective a comparison that was, Nature brings a lot of reputational weight into the process. I think it became a part of the discourse in large part because of that article. Before that, I think many academics thought of it as "something the students do," and not something we should be directly concerned with.

Comment from Dale Wertz, Flossmoor Public Library:
     A comment:

It is good to see this attention put towards examining the quality of information produced by Wikipedia in light of the way the information is produced, given that any method of production will entail biases of some sort. I can imagine an even more important session devoted to the way the American capitalist media produce news, and the biases that must result from that method of production. That digression aside, consider what Wikipedia's editors or users or trolls (your guess is as good as mine) think of Wikipedia as a reliable source. The quote is from Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" page as of 11:30 am CST on October 26, 2006.

"A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. However Wikipedia may be used as a primary source about Wikipedia, subject to the constraints above. Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources."

Question from Greg Johnson, UNC Chapel Hill:
    Is a "responsibly-managed free knowledge project" (definition of Citizendium by Citizendium) possible? Once you start requiring qualifications, you rule out free knowledge.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I don't think it's as extreme as that. I don't think Citizendium will work, but I also don't think most wikis work. Though the software is easy, the culture is hard. I think you can definitely have required qualifications and still do good (wiki) work. But I worry that it is difficult to do on Wikipedia's scale.

Question from John Dove, Xrefer Inc.:
    Since Wikipedia is also something worthy of study in itself, serious research about the nature of Wikipedia would certainly need to cite Wikipedia entries. But since Wikipedia is also a reflection of our society, isn't there also serious academic research that would want to cite Wikipedia entries as evidence of the broader society?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Absolutely. The problem is that the second part of this ("evidence of the broader society") is not clearly understood at all. Is Wikipedia a reflection of general knowledge, even through a dark lens? I don't think that's the case. If it is a mirror, it is an exceptionally convoluted one.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Just to comment on Mr. Wertz's remark: I think it's worth dividing the question of citing in research and making practical use of the site. I think many people wonder whether they can use Wikipedia as a source of general information "safely." And the answer is "usually."

Question from Brock Read:
    Here's a question from Nadine Davis of Delta College: "How would you explain to students the value of a wiki? What would you see as the value?"

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I think wikis represent the web as a social gateway, a way of contraining conversation, and a great illustration of how computing technologies can be used to collaborate and build through distributed groups. Most students still don't get that Wikipedia *is* a wiki. They use it because it's the first hit on Google. But the idea that a group of tens of thousands of volunteers can build a substantial repository of modern knowledge is, I think, one of the most amazing events of the century.

Question from Brock Read:
    Alex, you're hoping to put together a panel of experts in your field who could certify particular Wikipedia articles as well-written and well-researched. Would the panel also point out Wikipedia articles that need a lot of work? Are there other disciplines in which similar panels are being discussed?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    The second part first: As part of an effort to make a "stable" version of wikipedia that could be distributed in various fixed media, there are many similar efforts to "fact-check" wikipedia. The attempt I am organizing is a little bit different, in that it relies on pretty standard processes of peer review, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. And yes, as part of this process, we will identify articles the editors think are vital to the field, even if the current article in this area (if it exists) is not ready for peer review. Other groups are also identifying "holes."

Question from John Hubbard, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
    As someone who uses both library materials and Wikipedia, I'm discouraged by your comment that disrupting Wikipedia was just "probably the wrong way to go." Why is it that the scholars and librarians that view vandalism of library books as abhorrent have no qualms about doing the same thing to an online encyclopedia? How would you feel if someone ripped out pages from your library's books as part of an experiment?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    If the pages could be magically reinstated by the next patron. Not that bad :). This isn't spray-paint vandalism, it's chalk vandalism. Still bad, perhaps, but not terrible.

Comment from David Peterson, Independent - Chicago:
    The number one problem with the Wikipedia project is no different than with any other human endeavor. It is rooted not within an academic versus democratic or populist divide, between knowledge and superstition, with the alleged devaluing of expertise flowing from Wikipedia’s open-source commitments. Rather, it is rooted within the human heart (i.e. in the struggle between honesty and dishonesty), and within the normal behavior of institutional actors who seek to exploit Wikipedia’s open-source philosophy for their own cynical ends. (For a case in point, see this discussion.)

Wikipedia permits anonymous contributions. It is a fact of the human condition that anonymity is a breeding ground for every form of deception the human mind can imagine. For Wikipedia’s core problem, we need look no further than right here.

It is clear that no one involved with the Wikipedia project needs me to remind them about this. But it might be worth pointing out is that the academic world is as rife with dishonesty as any other—the world of sports, let us say. The only real difference being that academics make more sophisticated liars and deceivers than the general public. But that is all.

Question from Scott Hines, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology:
    I often use Wikipedia more like a dictionary, just to learn a bit about a subject with which I'm completely unfamiliar, and then go on to scholarly sources for more in-depth information. I feel perfectly comfortable with this use both for myself and for my students. What do you think of that particular usage for Wikipedia?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I think that's what it is made for, and the most common usage. Perhaps even the "model" usage. I think there is a problem when students *think* they have reached the end when they look it up on Wikipedia, but that's why teachers exist: to show them that there is more out there...

Question from John Dove, Xrefer Inc.:
    I was on a panel of three reference publishers (Oxford University Press, World Book, and Xrefer) at Wikimania this summer at Harvard University. I was impressed by the seriousness of Wikipedians regarding having good authoritative references in their entries. The winner of the best entry of the year, it was pointed out, had something like 42 citations to standard authoritative works. Will this improve Wikipedia's reputation in higher ed?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I was there as well, and impressed not only by their scholarship, but by their engagement and open discussion with existing institutions. Unfortunately, any reference work will continue to be judged by its worst, not its best, entry. I think, with time and familiarity, it will continue to make inroads in academia, and during this time we will also see continued improvement in quality.

Question from Jeff Young, The Chronicle:
    If you tried to introduce errors into Wikipedia today, do you think they would be rooted out faster, or has the volume of submissions possibly made it easier to game the system?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Because of some research I and a graduate student (Derek Lackaff) have recently been engaged in, I think I could be a more effective saboteur :)! As the traffic increases, you see the scale of the encyclopedia increase, and some of the defacements increase proportionately. The core articles, I think, would be harder to mess with (though they were pretty safe even back then). The peripheral articles? I think they are unfortunately still in a bit of peril. A neat project would be to announce "orphan" pages that need looked after, since I think there are some pretty unwatched articles out there.

Question from Brock Read:
    Do professors have an obligation to contribute to Wikipedia? Or do you see that as a matter of personal choice?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I don't think I can answer that for professors at large. I feel I have an obligation to do so, at least within my field. I think the sort of public scholarship (like what we are doing now!) is an important part of being a professor. Since Wikipedia is probably the single most visible source of knowledge for many today, it strikes me as an important place to engage in that role. I would love to see universities and tenure committees embrace that role, but I am not holding my breath.

Question from Brock Read:
    What would it take for Wikipedia's articles on the humanities -- generally considered to be among its weakest material -- to catch up with its comparatively strong articles on science? Is the field of science just a more natural fit for a community-edited project?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Yes, I think science is a more natural fit. I don't think this is as much because the hard sciences consist of "facts" (though this is certainly debated and debatable), but because there is already a strong culture of collaborative knowledge exchange. Multiple-authorship, things like arXiv.org, all of these suggest that Wikipedia is closer to the practices of natural scientists. The relative anonymity of Wikipedia makes contributions in the humanities difficult. But I think that increased use by humanities students and scholars will improve this area. I should note that while it is relatively weaker than the sciences, the difference is not as vast (at least in terms of volume) as it is sometimes made out to be. There are deficits in other areas that are a bit more surprising (e.g., medicine, law).

Question from Nadine Davis, Delta College, MIchigan:
    When you speak of wikis as “great illustration of how computing technologies can be used to collaborate and build through distributed groups,” I am reminded of George Siemens’ work on connectivism that discusses how learning “can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing” (Siemens, 2002). The greatest contribution of computer technology is the social networking and storage of vast files of knowledge that we can assess. Our jobs as educators becomes one where we must teach our students to find and assess the information that they come across.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I couldn't agree more. We need to guide students to not just find, but build these knowledge spaces. This give-and-take is unfamiliar ground for many of us, but also very rewarding when it goes well. I think Wikipedia is an indicator of a greater shift in how we communicate, particularly within educational institutions.

Question from Brock Read:
    You were at this year's Wikimania conference, a meeting of Wikipedia contributors and observers held this summer at Harvard University. Did anything surprise you about the culture of the conference?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I may have touched on this earlier, but I had--in part because of following the long debate on experts in Wikipedia--expected a stronger anti-elite bias. I didn't find it. While many long-standing Wikipedians were clearly skeptical of traditional modes of knowledge production, they were not dismissive of institutionalized knowledge. They were open to whatever seemed to work. As a group, I was pleasantly surprised (though I don't know why I should have been) by their pragmatism.

Question from Dan Carnevale, The Chronicle:
    It seems that with Wikipedia getting a bad reputation, students are learning that when they use it, they should trust but verify. Because of the skepticism surrounding Wikipedia, isn't it just a matter of time that students will soon move on to the next big thing? Especially with the speed in which technology evolves, it seems the electronic market will work itself out.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    No, I don't think they'll leave it behind. Googlearchy has enthroned it for the long term, I think. In other words, I think that Wikipedia has real staying power, and not only will they continue to use it, but their kids will use Wikipedia--or whatever it evolves into. But no, I don't see a Wikipedia-killer on the horizon. (Famous last words.)

Question from Curt Jones, college withheld:
    Are professors afraid to write for Wikipedia because they don't want to have their work edited, or do they just find the idea distasteful?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Not just profs. I had some graduate students do their first-time edits, and most--though accurate--were reverted. That can make anyone's first edit their last. I don't know that they find it distasteful, so much as it doesn't "count" for much in the academic environment. And yes, for some, having non-experts edit their work, and often make it worse, in terms of writing if nothing else, can be a new and difficult experience.

Question from Brock Read:
    You've mentioned that you're skeptical of Citizendium, Larry Sanger's new project that aims to become a scholar-vetted alternative to Wikipedia. Are you dubious of that project's procedure -- i.e. the fact that it would seem to require a real time commitment from scholars -- or its basic principles?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    I think it may suffer from the problem of defining and licensing expertise. One of the comments at Wikimania is that some authors should have something--a little gold star--next to their names if they had verifiable PhDs. Of course, most of us know quite a few quacks with doctorates. It's not a guarantee of expertise, particularly outside of a narrow field. So I think the real problem is that it seeks to reify this idea of "expert." I can see it working if the editors were very well paid... but I just think that one of the reasons Wikipedia works so well is that it does keep things *relatively* simple and transparent.

Question from Ritchie Boyd, Montana State U -Bozeman:
    An October 27 article in this Chronicle reported that ETS has found that many of today's students "fall short on information literacy". How do you think educators might reconcile the need to teach content and at the same time provide the literacy skills to sift thru the content?

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    By not teaching content. Perhaps that is too strong a statement, but it's that whole "teaching a student to fish" thing. I think we need to spend a lot more time teaching about process. This doesn't just apply to information literacy, but to things like how to work effectively in a team, how to take things apart, etc. I love MIT's "How to learn just about anything" course, for example. I think we generally see this as the stuff that dresses up our core role: as expert repositories of knowledge. I think that has to change.

Comment from Terry Calhoun, Society for College and University Planning (SCUP):
    In my experience, as a professional who needs to know far more about more things than any one person could ever study, Wikipedia is absolutely a first-rate first reference, and anyone writing about any topic who does not use this easily accessible reference is missing a bet.

As one who writes about trends in information technology, Wikipedia is one of many developments pointing to a possible Technology Singularity, along with the growing multiple-input transparency of all sorts of information, including about politicians and companies. Professors (many of whom are my friends) do not have a clue how differently arranged sources of knowledge are going to be after one more generation.

At a SCUP conference about 6-7 years ago I engaged in a debate with a senior administration figure at the University of Michigan who was bemoaning the fact that students would no longer come to the library to find things. I told her that professionals would no longer do that, either, not just students, and suggested that the university should just put all of the library on line.

The response: "Over my dead body." Anyone out there not know about the UM-Google plan to put the entire University of Michigan library on line? Thankfully, this did not happen over anyone's dead body.

Try this one on for size: Check out what Wikipedia has to say about your local congressperson or senator. I bet that not only is it more accurate but far more useful and comprehensive than the poitician's own website. I think the problem is in comparing it with encyclopedias as though that were its only competition.

It's a great, accessible, some day perhaps ubiquitous light, that can and does dispell the shadows of ignorance for many people.

Question from Emory Craig, College of New Rochelle:
    Is it not possible that the fundamental issue here is simply the question of the effectiveness of an online community? Pages that are watched over may well be vandalized, but they are quickly corrected (a point often missed by critics). And the better authors tend to rise to the top (if you constantly add material and it keeps getting corrected, you'll probably go elsewhere). The real problem is in the orphan or other pages with few interested users. Perhaps what students need to learn how to do is gauge the "critical mass" behind the page -- a form of evaluation that we have often not taught.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Quite right. I guess the question becomes, given the new forms of evaluation needed to understand Wikipedia, do we take the time to teach this. I think that it is so very widely used by undergraduates that--despite the seeming "one off" nature of teaching literacy related to a single site (or a small subset of web material found in wikis broadly), that we would be remiss not to do so.

Question from Brock Read:
    Thanks, everyone. I think we'll call it a day. Thanks especially to Alex for taking the time to share his insights.

Alexander M.C. Halavais:
    Thanks so much for the questions. Sorry for any lapses in spelling or grammar. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or comments, via http://alex.halavais.net/contact.