February 14, 2008
U. of Texas Professor Praises Wikipedia
Scholars often take swipes at Wikipedia, claiming that it dumbs down education and encourages intellectual laziness. Some professors have even banned their students from using it for research. But in an article this week in Science Progress, a scholar at the University of Texas at Dallas argues that such bans are irresponsible.
David Parry, an assistant professor of emerging media and communications at the university, writes that students need to become familiar with new and non-static forms of communication. He encourages his students to read Wikipedia’s “history” and “discussion” pages, saying they explain how articles were produced. And he says the online encyclopedia’s entry on global warming does a good job of explaining both the controversy and the science surrounding the issue.
“Like it or not, the networked digital archive changes our basis of knowledge,” Mr. Parry writes “and training people for the future is about training them for this shift.”—Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Thursday February 14, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: You Forgot Valentine's Day. No Need to Fret.
Next: U. of Virginia Professor Advocates More Privacy Protections
Anyone who wants to get a sense of just what brand of fruitcakes one is dealing with in Wikipedia World should try reading the English Wikipedia Discussion List for a month or two.
Just don’t go in there without a spotter to haul you back out while you still have some shred of your faculties intact.
— Jon Awbrey Feb 14, 04:17 PM #
Sure, Wikipedia can and should be “used for research”, in the same way a classroom might use a cadaver for research. The class shouldn’t take the cadaver home to meet Mother, nor should it use the cadaver to co-sign for a loan.
Wikipedia has immense research value — as the SUBJECT of the research, not the citation FOR the research.
— Gregory Kohs Feb 14, 04:43 PM #
Wikipedia is just as good as most basic encyclopedias, and it doesn’t need “academic” (cough, cough cough) consent, nor payments to “academic” writers.
Join the emergent information transfer paradigm you 20th century types!
;-)
— Max Macias Feb 14, 04:52 PM #
We all understand the desire for quick online reliable access.
Wikipedia will thrive as long as online access to ‘peer reviewed’ and ‘academically reliable information’ remains expensive – Why don’t we spend our energy having a conversation about obtaining convenient access free of advertisement to Britannica, Americana, Funk & Wagnall or Gale Encyclopedia of Science, etc.?
— M. Hansen Feb 14, 05:06 PM #
I think the most important point David Parry makes in his article is that, thanks to the history and discussion pages, the review process for producing articles is much more transparent than it is for traditional encyclopedias. Instructors can direct students to these pages and engage the students in useful discussions about how knowledge is produced. Furthermore, the barrier for students to actually participate in the production of knowledge is much lower with Wikipedia.
The accuracy of individual entries in Wikipedia is important, sure, but it’s somewhat beside the point. Wikipedia makes visible the process by which knowledge is produced. That features opens the doors to all kinds of educational possibilities.
— Derek Feb 14, 06:00 PM #
I agree with Derek.
Like any encyclopedia, Wiklpedia is a tertiary reference that should be used with care.
Transparent editing logs and discussion forums can help students gain an understanding of the writing and research processes. More research publications will adopt these tools over time, as their readers and contributors demand the functionality.
I tell my students not to cite Wikipedia directly. However, there are many good Wikipedia articles that have reference lists. Those lists may be a good way to find secondary sources.
— Bill Sodeman Feb 14, 06:21 PM #
Derek:
I don’t know about you, but I actually spent some time working in that sausage factory you know as “Wikipedia”. It is the “wurst” thing imaginable, as far as encyclopedias go. Knowing all too well “the process”, I can assure you it bears far more resemblance to a MMORPG than any reputable encyclopedia.
— Cedric Feb 14, 06:22 PM #
Ah, Yes, Transparency …
Try to imagine a typical day at the Wikipedian Campus o’ th’ Future.
1001 Administrators, all of them dressed in the Full Regalia of Halloween, with pseudonyms straight out of Harry Potter and other Great Books.
Chancellor Waldemart says she has a cold today, but you could swear it’s the same person who called himself Provost Lestringent yesterday. But never mind that now — how well you remember the fate of Poor Old Bumblebore, summarily banned from Campus for all time by Chief Counsel Snipe, and all he did was hint that Dean Umbrage talked and walked in a manner quite reminiscent of Dean Malvolio.
Yes, no doubt that’s the sort of “Transparency” that Administrations o’ th’ Future would be glad to don — along with their Precious Invisibility Cloaks.
— Jon Awbrey Feb 14, 10:26 PM #
Wikipedia is useful for elements of pop-culture that are rarely covered academically. It’s also useful in that it contains links to respectable sources. And when it comes to math or even science it’s not awful.
Where it’s mostly horrid/harmful is on anything concerning humans. (Religion, politics, biographies of people, etc) On that it’s so terrible I’d be willing to say it’d be better if it didn’t exist. However if you just want to know about animated television series or math theorems it’s fine.
Note: I’ve edited at Wikipedia for about three years under the name “T. Anthony.”
— Thomas R Feb 14, 11:12 PM #
Jimmy Wales, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia made a salient observation in a TIME magazine interview (April 2, 2007, p. 6). In response to a reader question, “How can I persuade my teachers to allow me to use Wikipedia as a legitimate research source?” Wales said, “I would agree with your teachers that that isn’t the right way to use Wikipedia. It’s a wonderful starting point for research. But it’s only a starting point because there’s always a chance that something’s wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper.” NOW he tells us! :-)
— MDR Feb 15, 07:15 AM #
Warnings from Wikipedia itself about its use (or misuse) as a primary source have been on the site for years. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Students should be taught WHY it should not be used as a primary source not simply told not to use it. Anybody who has been around 19-year-olds for more than five minutes knows that the surest way to guarantee they will misuse it is to just tell them not to use it (or to just make fun of it). What Parry is saying is just common sense and is academically and intellectually responsible.
The people who make fun of things like Wikipedia remind me of the birth of rock and roll. People made fun of Elvis all the time. That made kids love him even more.
— Mike Lyons Feb 15, 10:16 AM #
I don’t deny the usefulness of Wikipedia when I need basic and complimentary concepts of any subject I don’t know well.
I agree it is a very transparent reference tool, but I don’t consider it as an academic support for research. I can valide my information and my mental maps (built with Wiki) with another more serious information resources.
— Azucena Feb 15, 10:20 AM #
I’ve been exploring wiki entries for a variety of uses.
I find the citations largely excellent, often fully referenced, and typically include live links that are often lacking in other sources.
I was exploring the science behind fluorescent proteins, and the wiki was substantially more current AND comprehensive than the available (and largely) single author reviews I could find via PubMed.
I am not saying it’s perfect, but it is often substantially MORE valuable than other sources.
As a practicing scientist, having available, accurate and up to date information is invaluable to me.
Sorry your areas on the wiki seem to be less well populated; maybe you need to take some time out to contribute if you think it’s so bad?
— Stephen Feb 15, 10:27 AM #
I think wikipedia is a better source for academic entries than for anything that allows for multiple takes on the issue—especially in areas of leisure. For example, NEVER trust an entry you read that pertains to sports in any way—sports fans are some of the dumbest and most opinionated individuals on earth. The people who edit these pages have many misconceptions and tend to insert opinion wherever they wish…degrading the entry’s neutrality. I’d imagine the area of politics is similar in this regard.
On the other hand, I’ve found that entries in science and medicine tend to be well-researched simply because those who feel the need to edit these pages are generally more educated on the subject matter. By no means does this make them infallible…but it does add to the professionalism of these entries.
Finally, I think it’s fallacious to assume that “print” sources are more reliable than internet ones—even wikipedia. Most print sources you find in the library will be outdated anyway…and there’s little doubt they will contain errors as well. Perhaps many of them are, generally speaking, more reliable than internet sources…but a student could still get something from a print source and have it be factually incorrect.
— JT Feb 15, 12:26 PM #
I manage a small college library. In the information literacy presentations I give I always ask one of the students to explaining Wikipedia to their peers. They almost always caution against taking it at face value. Sometimes they parrot what they’ve heard about it being a “bad” resource. I counter that opinion and encourage all of them to go to Wikipedia and check it out because it is so interesting and because it can be a great starting point. I reinforce the caution as well and recommend that it be used as a search engine not as an authoritative (and thus cite-able) source.
— Fran Feb 15, 12:48 PM #
As a Professional Librarian of 20 years experience, I echo Fran’s words. I emphasize to users that is a good general tool as an introduction to a topic but for research papers and other important usages, it is not citable as of now. There have been so many sea changes with the internet and the Library, who knows what the future may hold;
— Tammy Feb 15, 01:24 PM #
As a librarian and teacher of librarianship I have found students able to distinguish between the reliable and unreliable parts of sources like Wikipedia. They have experience knowing how much weight to give to postings on blogs and similar places— more so than most faculty.
— David Feb 15, 01:36 PM #
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. When I teach students, I try to explain the value of encyclopedias in research: rarely with a broad encyclopedia like Britannica go into near enough depth to do focused research on any topic. Wikipedia is the same way – the things you find are not the online / open versions of journal articles – they are the online / open versions of the entries you’d find in an encyclopedia. They are only as useful as an encyclopedia entry in research.
Then I go put “Yo mamma has big thighs” on any page and watch them freak out that yes, even jerks edit wikipedia.
— Eric Frierson Feb 15, 01:53 PM #
I think I will have to disagree with comment 17. There are certainly many students who can distinguish but many more who would have trouble.
In the world today, the quick fix is what everyone wants and when you factor in students who do not read or write English(or any other language) well and you have a comment like number14.
You may teach at a Ivy league school or a really good institution but unfortunately not all students have those advantages. This is where Information Literacy can and should play a large part in every educational facility.
— tammy Feb 15, 02:17 PM #
Since when is an encyclopedia — any encyclopedia — acceptable as a source for a research paper? Of course it’s OK to say that reference to Wikipedia is unacceptable in the same way we abjure the World encyclopedia, etc.
— llevitt Feb 15, 04:14 PM #
“Why don’t we spend our energy having a conversation about obtaining convenient access free of advertisement to Britannica, Americana, Funk & Wagnall or Gale Encyclopedia of Science, etc.?”
You mean like you would get at the library? ;)
— librarian Feb 16, 11:21 AM #
17: This might not be as easy as you think. Although most anyone can spot obviously false things there have been subtler forms of vandalism over the years.
For example a person says that “Jessica McSporran graduated magna cum laude from Stanford” or that “Barry Corelli wrote ‘The Leopards’ first hit song.” None of that sounds overly absurd, but if it’s false it’s false and how would a student know? Newspapers and references, at least ideally, are supposed to have fact checkers.
— Thomas R Feb 17, 01:18 AM #
It has been said that Wikipedia is open. That statement is false. It is known to be false by all open-eyed observers who spend a long enough time participating in the Wikipedia process.
It has been said that Wikipedia is transparent. That statement is false. It is known to be false by all clear-eyed observers who spend a long enough time participating in the Wikipedia process.
People who say that Wikipedia is open and transparent are either dissembling or simply not in full possession of the facts.
It is simply ludicrous to use words like “open” and “transparent” to describe a publication run by anonymous contributors, editors, and administrators. And that is only the first layer of absurdity in the claims that Wikipedia is open and transparent. Wikipedia administrators operate many different levels of closed decision-making behind the facade of public process. Wikipedia administrators routinely and unilaterally delete the content and the contribution histories of discussions that they personally or collectively find inconvenient.
And, yes, the ability to maintain this level of deception and distortion depends very heavily on being able to operate without the accountability that is normally afforded by the use of real names.
That is an obvious truth, and people who affect not to grasp it are being either disingenuous or hopelessly naive.
People like that are not to be trusted with the world’s collective knowledge, much less the tasks of public education, information, and inquiry.
— Jon Awbrey Feb 21, 09:03 AM #
One has to be more than a little amused that the two first responses to this thread are from people who have been banned from Wikipedia for their widespread disruption (and in the case of one editor, an attempt to base a business plan on adding articles to Wikipedia for a fee).
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Wikipedia is not a source in and of itself, but a well-written article will have links to sources that can be used as references. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, which don’t provide extensive footnotes or bibliographies, Wikipedia is more transparent as to the sources of its data, even if the real names of the editors are not readily apparent.
— Ron Binns Feb 22, 04:33 PM #
Amusing indeed.
And how, you ask, does an editor with 13,000 edits get “banned” from contributing to a “free” and “open” and “transparent” encyclopedia that “anyone can edit”?
To answer that, you will have to crack open a few closed doors and take a peek inside Wikipedia’s Kangaroo Court — complete with “secret evidence” and fly-by-night lynch mobs of hooded hangmen, 8 or 9 of which arrogate to themselves the audacity of speaking for a so-called “community” or 6 million accounts.
It makes you wonder — How did our traditional encyclopedias ever get along without the modern convenience of their very own Camp X-ray?
— Jon Awbrey Feb 22, 09:58 PM #
Ron Binns — here’s a challenge for you. Discuss why the Reward Board (where cash is exchanged for adding articles to Wikipedia) is morally superior to MyWikiBiz (a business founded BEFORE the WP:Conflict of Interest policy came into being, and would have edited articles in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure)?
The Reward Board is protected and honored, while MyWikiBiz was banned and libeled. And you hold this up as an honor for Wikipedia?
Ron Binns, are you the same Binns of Schulich fame?
— Gregory Kohs Feb 23, 08:49 AM #
I agree that Wikipedia is a useful research tool that can lead to secondary source publications, but we must remember that not everything in writing is accurate, even if it is peer reviewed.
I can’t tell you how many articles I have read and questioned their sampling techniques, statistical analyses, or assumptions, but they were published in respectable journals. As with all written materials, we must always be critical and trust the source only when sufficient evidence is present.
— Chris Mar 13, 01:11 AM #