June 12, 2006
Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.
Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called “The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”
Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. “It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it,” he said. “It’s good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.”
In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books. —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
I find the best use of Wikipedia is when I need to get a slightly biased, almost neutral opinion on a person. For example, I did’nt get the Family Guy jokes about Roman Polanski, and Google did not tell me what made people make fun of him. Then I checked Wikipedia…and bam!
— Sean Jun 13, 12:25 AM #
What kind of idiot cites Wikipedia? The point of citation is to hold an individual responsible, or to give credit to an individual. The nature of Wikipedia is collaborative, and thus non-static and in constant flux. There is simply no credit to give, and thus no accountability for the truth of the arguments. I appreciate Wales suggestions – it is quite good (I use it all the time) for broad overviews of unfamiliar topics. It has its place, but an academic source it is not.
— Grant Jun 13, 01:00 AM #
Never assume anything from one source is correct. If you can’t find two other people willing to risk their reputation’s on the information then it’s probable not worth risking yours.
— Philip Jun 13, 01:00 AM #
How are history books any more definitive than wikipedia? It’s called “his-story” for a reason—it’s a version of the past. Original sources are generally preferable but quite rare. If a college student can use any other encyclopedia or library book, why not wikipedia? Inspite of the prejudices, it’s not less accurate (generally). How many books in a library are primary resources? No encyclopedia is, yet they are generally accepted.
— Matthew C. Tedder Jun 13, 01:01 AM #
I do Information and Library Science, and it’s pretty much the first thing you learn here. But Wikipedia is a great starting point.
— Bart Brinkman Jun 13, 01:04 AM #
#4 see #2 … Also “books in the labrary” have publishers, editors and fact checkers. An online wiki has no screening before publishing. Both it’s#4 see #2 … Also “books in the labrary” have publishers, editors and fact checkers. Wikipedia has no screening before publishing, both it’s beauty and it’s beast.
— Philip Jun 13, 01:09 AM #
My mom would be one of those teachers slashing marks for citations of Wikipedia – and not because the information is wrong either. She teaches high school, and expects her students to look deeper for sources of information than Wikipedia or just Googling their topic (some students just list the first 10 Google hits regardless of where their info comes from). If high school kids are supposed to be more academically mature than that, what on earth are college kids thinking?
— Tony Yarusso Jun 13, 01:25 AM #
#6 see dictionary.
— David Jun 13, 02:11 AM #
I would have to say those students that got an F, deserved to. They obviousely only used Wikipedia as their source of information. If they were doing teh assignment properly they would have looked up alternative sources. In fact in a history paper this a requirement as different sides have different points of view. Often in histroy it is neccessary to used multiple sources and filter through the incorrect information as apoosed to the correct information. So I agree with the Wikipedia founder, if you used wikipedia as your only source and did not bother to confirm the informatrion or use other sources as proof in your paper then you deserve the F
— Michael Jun 13, 02:20 AM #
Umm, no, that’s not why it’s called history. This is: historia -ae f. [inquiry; the results of inquiry; learning; historical narrative , history]; in gen., [narrative, story]. it comes from Latin, and no, that joke is all Greek to ancient Romans, too.
— david Jun 13, 02:32 AM #
I discourage my students from citing any encyclopaedia, be it Encarta, Britannica, or Wikipedia.
— anon Jun 13, 03:40 AM #
A good article on Wikipedia will cite the sources from which the article was constructed. If you want to investigate a subject in depth, start with those sources. Wikipedia is intended to provide a summary overview of a subject and pointers to where further information can be found. Don’t cite the Wikipedia article, cite that article’s sources.
— Phil Boswell Jun 13, 04:13 AM #
“It’s called ‘his-story’ for a reason”
proof by fantasy etymology—clearly the work of an enlightened academic! of course nothing is true just by virtue of being in a book, be it the wikipedia or any other one. it’s true that in history, original resources are often rare, but proper citations are more precisely about primary, not necessarily ‘original’ resources. a contemporary report of events is not necessarily more trustworthy than research conducted a thousand years later. but for a proper research paper, there are at least ways to establish its trustworthiness. ideally, the wikipedia article on a subject cites such research, so when you start at the wikipedia, you can get those papers/books and see for yourself, and cite them yourself. the very point of wikipedia is that it doesn’t contain any original research itself, but summaries and interpretations thereof. and an indirect citation, building on someone else’s summary or interpretation, is not a proper one. thus if you’re citing the wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia or library book that doesn’t fit appropriate academic criteria, it’s obvious you don’t understand or care for proper citations, thus don’t fulfill the requirements of your assignment, and fail it.
— nex Jun 13, 05:10 AM #
Wouldn’t that make it ‘his-tory’ anyway?
My tory would be Benjamin Disraeli.
— Jon Jun 13, 08:32 AM #
Yet another reason for librarians and teachers/ faculty to work together to encourage user instruction and include sessions on how to use the library as part of their curriculum. Not to mention how to evaluate a web page…
— asw Jun 13, 08:43 AM #
I tell my students that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to troll for topic ideas (as is Google) but definitely NOT a venue for serious research. As college students, they should already know this. Sadly, this is not always the case…
— Jeannie Jun 13, 09:18 AM #
It all depends. There are many subjects (new or arcane) covered in Wiki and nowhere else accessible to the average reseracher … especially if you can read Wiki in foreign languages. Also, the better Wiki articles have good bibliographies and links. You can’t beat it on a “for what it’s worth” basis, and if you cite it that way, and note (if true) that it’s a “sole source” or a different or biased source, it’s no worse than most non-peer-reviewed articles and better than some. One drawback is that the text changes over time, while Britannica’s 11th ed. is fixed forever (and if Piltdown Man is later discovered a fraud, tant pis pour ça).
— Andy Jun 13, 09:30 AM #
I like the idea of using wikis to organize course material. However, I do not allow students to cite wikis. College students should not be citing ANY encyclopedia; thier research should be comprehensive in scope and nature. I prefer wikispaces because it isn’t easily confused as an encyclopedia (or wiktionary).
— Beth Ritter-Guth Jun 13, 09:38 AM #
So why does wikipedia include information about how to cite the articles? Also, aren’t citations supposed to show where you found all of your information. If you use wikipedias bibliography, I would think that you would need to list both the books used and the wikipedia article.
— J Jun 13, 09:38 AM #
A Wikipeadia citation is OK for the review/intro part of an essay, but not for the main thesis development of an essay. You flesh out the thesis with more specific, authoritative sources. If a professor flunks for that, then the professor is an idiot. Having been in academia for a long time, I’ve seen no shortage of less-than competant professors.
— peter303 Jun 13, 09:56 AM #
Thank God I’m now eleven years retired from teaching English. I had enough trouble with students misusing legitimate sources, by citing one or two at random and assuming the job was done. The myth that electronic sources are fast and therefore more desirable is now shown in all its fallibility.
— Hassell A. Simpson Jun 13, 10:22 AM #
Im in University in Engineering and have got into this debate with TA’s over citing wikipeadia, its the same information covered elsewhere on the web, just far more clearly laid out. I had to defend myself for quoting something out of Wikipeadia. Same information that is elsewhere on the web and books. So why are they automatically assuming that if I cited Wikipeadia im wrong.
— Nick Bonderoff Jun 13, 10:34 AM #
While I agree with most of the qualifications made by Mr. Wales, I’d say that Wikipedia is useful for those of us that are doing Pop Culture research. This is especially true if you’re more interested in a discourse-analysis around a topic, rather than the topic itself. For example, if you’re interested in how people define sci-fi and the debates around it, you could use Wikipedia as an example of a definition that is viewed by a broad swath of websurfers. On the other hand, we can never forget that “collaborative editing” is not the same thing as “total democracy.” The group of folks who have the time, internet acess and editorial power to control and edit Wiki articles still do not represent everyone.
— Luis Jun 13, 11:29 AM #
As both professional librarian and as an adjunct professor in library school, I couldn’t agree with the Wikipedia founder more. By all means use encyclopedias (general ones and specialized ones) to get an overview of a topic and perhaps provide ideas for narrowing in on a topic for a paper, but don’t stop there. Continue on into the research results, the books, or the primary sources where appropriate. Don’t totally dismiss encyclopedias – they do have their place. I think Wikipedia has some very strong points. For instance, they’ll be the best thing going for getting you STARTED (and only started) on a topic like the Greenfield neighborhood of Pittsburgh or an odd topic like tensegrity. Encyclopedias like the Britannica will be no help whatsoever.
— Matt Jun 13, 11:40 AM #
Sure hope #22 (the engineering student) doesn’t use Wikipedia to build a bridge…..
— M.Adams Jun 13, 11:44 AM #
Encyclopedias of all types are most useful at the beginning of a research quest, for orientation and bibliography. Readers should consult them early in the writing process and follow their pointers to more definitive sources. It is just as silly to cite Wikipedia in the final paper as it is to jump without doing preliminary reference-book reading into a frantic quest to retrieve journal articles for which one has little context. The general prohibition on “using encyclopedias” in research is a process error—the right information at the wrong stage of the game. There are hundreds of excellent specialized subject encyclopedias which can, nay should, be used in preparing a research project. Good reference reading is essential for poise in interpreting the research landscape.
— Carisse Jun 13, 11:49 AM #
Simply failing anyone who cites Wikipedia is an example of educators being lazy and unnecessarily combative with their students. I have found that most students who rely upon Wikipedia as their primary source of information for research papers simply do not exhibit the level of critical thinking necessary to write a good paper in the first place. Since their writing will penalize them anyway, there is no need to impose an arbitrary rule that short circuits a potentially useful research strategy. Instead, educators need to realize that it is their responsibility to help students learn how to do research so citations of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are used sparingly and appropriately.
— Eric Jun 13, 12:55 PM #
I’d often stick wikipedia on a works consulted page… always found it useful for a quick bit of context. but hell no, not a primary source.
— jef Jun 13, 01:32 PM #
I suspect those who were failed for using wikipedia, while they may have been failed on that source alone, likely also failed for exhibiting lazy research skills and probably less than stellar writing to go with their research, or lack of it. I allow my students to cite wikipedia, but I do not let it count as part of the research that is to come from secondary sources (so as not to confuse them with primary sources: the works written by the folks who were there, whereever there is or was, be it in a novel, book length essay or whatever). Like others noted, it’s a good place to start, a good place for background, but, and this depends upon the topic as some noted, there is more authoritative and reliable information out there (but even those sources have been duped—e.g., cloning in S. Korea).
— bradley bleck Jun 13, 01:47 PM #
#27 – It is not the teachers who are lazy for failing a student that cites Wikipedia; it is the student who is lazy for citing Wikipedia and not doing further research. I thank teachers who fail students for not delving deeper into the topics they are supposed to be learning about – these teachers are holding students accountable!
I encourage everyone to take a look at The Digital Universe – www.digitaluniverse.net – it is a new website that aims to create a partnership between experts and the public. The difference with Wikipedia is, content on Digital Universe will be vetted by stewards/specialists in each content area, who will be responsible in providing the most up-to-date information available. I have just learned about this site, so check it out for yourself. More material is added by the day, and I can’t wait to see what this site looks like once it is in full swing!
— wendy Jun 13, 01:55 PM #
#22, since reading this article, I’m writing my instructors asking them if they would prefer that I use some other source. I have use it along with my textbooks and other information from my instructors. There have been times when other sites didn’t give me quite enough information and I refered to Wikipedia. But, I’ve have gotten lots of A’s using Wikipedia along with other sources. If the instructors would prefer us not to use it; then we should be informed. #27 I will look into www.digititaluniverse.net, thank you for that information.
— Dedra Jun 13, 04:56 PM #
I think there is some confusion as to why we use citations. It seems that some people think it is the citation itself that is valuable not the research that is behind it. If the Wikipedia article gives its own citations to where the information came from then one can go and find the original source which is hopefully not just another free-to-edit’ website. If the Wikipedia article doesn’t give any citations of its own then you are citing an un-refereed article which may also change its contents with time; essentially ‘personal correspondence’ or ‘word of mouth’ except you don’t know who it is you are citing—not such a rigorous source. Any encyclopedia is only as good as its original sources and how useful it is will depend on how well it directs you to those sources.
— Dion Jun 13, 08:40 PM #
You’re not supposed to, or rather, shouldn’t be allowed to cite encyclopaedias as sources, for anything. Their purpose is for when you have a question, you can go and get it answered, it was why your parents bought them, and it’s why you should use wikipedia. The point of using a source, even if not primary, is that the person did tons of research for what they were writing about, probably toiling over primary sources which you can’t get your hands on, and in essence providing it for you.
— Dave Jun 13, 09:01 PM #
I hope that those teachers who are giving an “F” to students who use Wikipedia are teaching the students how to conduct proper research. Without training on what sources are credible and how to use library resources, the student will likely resort to what he or she has been taught – how to use the internet. Wikipedia does provide an excellent starting point for topics, which a student should cross-reference with other sources to check accuracy. But, I stress that teachers need to assess their students’ histories with as much scrutiny to see if the students have ever been required to write a research paper that utilized scholarly sources. What teachers may be interpreting as laziness and deceit may actually be fear, ignorance, and inexperience.
— Twila Jun 14, 10:33 AM #
Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you for posting this article. As a teacher-librarian I am constantly challenging my students over their use of Wikipedia as the main source of their research. This will help in my efforts to have them use materials that have gone through a stringent editorial process. As well it reinforces the efforts of teacher-librarians everywhere to have their students evaluate web sites before using them.
— Kay Jun 14, 11:57 AM #
There is authority and there is consensus. Wikipedia is good on consensus, not so good (yet?) on authority. So if it’s not an authority don’t quote it. You wouldn’t quote the mob. But it’s often useful to know what the mob thinks, or in Wikepedia’s case, what the mob writes.
— gta Jun 14, 12:53 PM #
Why are the teachers who are failing students for using Wikipedia allowing these students to use it in the first place? If there is such a strong reservation to using this resource, should the teacher not have mentioned this at some point before the paper was turned in. As a history major, my profs all warned about the perils of Wikipedia. I agree with the use of encyclopedic material as a starting point, but every student should have been taught the proper use of the material at a much lower level than collegiate.
— Bill Jun 14, 02:40 PM #
Whose responsibility is it to teach students to conduct research properly, as #27 and #34 note? It seems to me that teaching this may be in the realm of 100-, or maybe 200-, level courses. Instructors teaching upper-level courses should be able to reasonably expect that their students will be capable of conducting research on their own and not have to devote limited class time to discussing what is and is not “good” research.
— Melissa Jun 14, 03:58 PM #
I do use and cite wikipedia occasionally as a source in research, but it’s never my primary or only source. I do not use it for hard facts but rather for theories and debatable ideas.
— anna Jun 14, 10:05 PM #
Would it be fair to give someone an F for citing Wikipedia if all the information used was correct? And what if that student wrote an intelligent paper that used ten other really great resources? It is sad that so many people think that grades should be used as punishment, to teach somebody a lesson. College should be an academic environment, and learning should come first.
— sam Jun 15, 12:21 AM #
As a writing teacher, I use wikipedia all the time to learn more about the topics my students are researching in our second semester writing course. The kind of 5 minute intro wikepedia provides is a great way to prep for a conference with a student who’s researching something in biology, chemistry, physics, or computer science. What I find most useful about reading a wikipedia article is that it introduces some of the essential keywords of the subject and puts them into context, which means that I can listen in a much more useful and informed way to what students are telling me about their research. What a great tool!
— Janet Jun 15, 09:49 AM #
So much for the Wisdom of Crowds.
— MJ Gardner Jun 15, 12:25 PM #
While I agree that only idiots should think citing wikipedia in an academica article is a good idea, what are we to expect when people like Thomas Friedman, high-powered New York Times pundit, does so repeatedly in his book “The World is Flat”. Maybe someone should give him an F.
— Marshall Jun 15, 04:30 PM #
To be honest, I always use a lot of sources for my papers, but sometimes I use stuff that’s only mentioned on Wikipedia, and I don’t think I’ve ever been penalized for citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lots of interesting details, even if it isn’t always true. It’s one of my favorite sources, especially because when you put the author’s name in the works cited, it’s always some cool, made up name. Oh, and I never use books for history reports unless my teachers make me: books are almost always written in harder to understand language, and often you have to take a whole bunch of books out of the library so you can use three pages in each one.
— High School Student Jun 15, 10:57 PM #
Could someone provide the actual sentence where Mr. Wales said the “information turned out to be incorrect” and that was the reason for the student’s receiving the F? It’s simply paraphrased here yet his next statement which is actually quoted “don’t cite the encyclopedia” implies that the student is being failed for their citing of the wrong type of source (e.g. any encyclopedia whether online or paper book, collaboratively or singly authored), rather than on the basis the quality of the information found there.
Combined with the utterly inaccurate headline (“Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation”) I have more reason to question the bias and editorial quality of your own publication than the Wikipedia from this short piece.
— dave Jun 16, 08:01 AM #
Y’all a buncha stoopid nurds and yer stoopid book-lerning…
I’m off outside to enjoy a summer day whilst you’re all pontificating and gasbagging… Anyways, US education is substandard compared to the rest of the world anyways.
Nothing quite like a bunch pseudo-intellectuals getting frothy and high-nosed over the mundane. Self-serving bureaucrats and pencil-pushers morelike
I’m off Possum-huntin! This’ll rile ‘y’all up and make you shake your fists in mock rage :-)
Froth-on, Swots!
Jethro
— jethro@ozarks.com Jun 16, 12:05 PM #
Wendy (in comment #30), I just had a quick look at Digital Universe, now that there is some content, and I can’t say that I’m terribly impressed. Perhaps I haven’t been looking carefully enough, but I was struggling to find coherent content on the site. For instance, I went into the Univese portal, and it shows my local clusters, etc. but doesn’t give me an explanatin of how they fit together.
Digital Universe needs less wizz-bang effects and more textual content. Unless I read an explanation of something, I’m just not that interested.
— Ta bu shi da yu Jun 16, 08:45 PM #
I’m with #25
— Kevin Jun 17, 12:23 AM #
Wikipedia could be the most useful thing ever made… IF it’s function could shift just a little. All you have to do is add citations. Cite another site, a book, an article where you got the information. Cite yourself if you are an expert, explaining your degree or other qualified. Cite other experts. Turn it into both a quick and dirty encyclopedia AND the biggest, best, most thorough bibliography ever. It’s like every university student’s dream.
— Ernest Phillips Jun 17, 01:06 AM #
First point: If encyclopedias are not to be used for “serious” research, then what is? Why do libraries have a ton of encyclopedic resources for our use? As an online student, living 15 miles from the nearest library (albeit a very small library) and no time between work and the National Guard to just cruise over to the library and pour over resources, the Internet is my most valued resource locator. I do cite Wikipedia and usually about 10 – 15 other non-Wiki sources. I do correlate the information I retrieve from Wiki with the other resources (all online resources I might add). Second point: Where does Wiki get its information? Is it quite possibly from the same books that I may find at the library in New York or LA? If the owner of Wiki is saying that “students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.” (Wales,J., 2006), is his queried information not from the same sources? Mr. Wales may have just lost all of his traffic. I certainly will never use it again. Goodbye, Wikipedia.
— Mike Bacon Jun 21, 10:38 PM #
I admit that I’ve used Wikipedia in college papers, but never as a primary source. I usually go to Wikipedia to try to get a better of explanation of something that I’m having trouble understanding from the other soucres out there and Wiki explains things more simply a lot of the time. I believe that Wiki has it’s place in research, just not as a primary source.
— Niki Jun 22, 12:12 AM #
Who wrote this article? Were you there? Why are no citations given in the article? I agree with comment #45. If the Chronicle of Higher Education is going to report “news” on the web, they need to tell us where they are getting it. The shoddy reporting and sensational headline is a waste of all of our energy. Go back to blog school. Stick to commenting on published stories.
— Andy Jun 24, 01:23 PM #
#44: I hope you are joking, but I fear you are not. You like citing Wikipedia because of the cool made-up names?
Wikipedia is a neat experiment in collaboration. In ten years it may no longer be around. The real point is to learn to think critically about information, whether it’s posted in Wikipedia, on your best friend’s blog, broadcast on the evening news, or printed in the New York Times. Think for yourself. Don’t just do the bare minimum to pass a class. Research something you’re interested in. And if you only need three pages from a book, read it in the library or photocopy the pages you need. Don’t let a heavy backpack deter you from reading the best available sources.
— Laura Jun 26, 04:05 PM #
I think that most people are independed on this site not others.
— Kevin Shirey Jun 26, 07:46 PM #
#10 – I think you will find that history is derived from the Greek, not the Latin. The Romans adopted the word and the definition.
— not my real name Jun 30, 09:29 PM #
Well, no matter what anyone says, i use wikipedia as a first source of information – then search in depth the relevent things that i picked out from it, if the information don’t turn out to be correct after further studying then i don’t use it – it’s as simple as that! So it’s fool proof if u research indepth everything you gain from it – if it wasn’t for wikipedia then i would’t know half the things i do now!
— Antonio Subducio Jul 2, 11:56 AM #