May 16, 2008
A 'Frozen' Wikipedia Could Be Better for College, Founder Says
Cambridge, Mass. — Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has been outspoken about his view that his creation, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, should not be used in academic settings, especially by students writing papers. One reason is that any given entry “could change instantly and not have a final vetting process,” said Mr. Wales in an interview Thursday at a conference on the future of the Internet, held at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.
But the popular encyclopedia may soon add a new feature that would allow Wikipedia entries to be “cited more comfortably” by students and professors, he said. The feature would allow a version of a Wikipedia article to be frozen and approved by experts.
The German-language edition of Wikipedia has recently been experimenting with a similar feature, though so far it has only used to flag entries as being free from vandalism rather than certified by content specialists. “Later, it could have a flag that says ‘This version is one that a committee has actually vetted,’” he said. “We’d still allow further editing, but if you really wanted a version that as of three months ago we had three Ph.D.‘s look at it, and they checked it off as being good, we may move in that direction.”
Mr. Wales stressed that no final decision has been made on whether or not to create such expert-approved versions of Wikipedia pages. “The software is evolving in a direction that would allow the community to come up with ways of doing that,” he said.
Even so, he said, in most cases even an improved Wikipedia won’t be as appropriate for students as other sources. “What I always encourage students to do especially, is don’t think of Wikipedia as a source, think of Wikipedia as background knowledge.” —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Friday May 16, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Senate Committee Approves Orphan-Works Bill
Next: A Retrial for the RIAA's Only Successful Suit?
I think that’s great, and of course he’s right. Students shouldn’t be using Wikipedia for papers, but I think its a valid place for people to start their research and help give them some direction.
— Eliot May 16, 10:45 AM #
It would be nice to have a “stable” version of a Wikipedia article, however, I still wouldn’t want students to cite it. I don’t let them cite Encyclopedia Brittanica or World Book Encyclopedia as a reference for a research paper, why would I want them to cite an online encyclopedia?
— Mark May 16, 03:08 PM #
I disagree with the epistemology expressed by Wales in his final statement.
Background knowledge is what each reader brings to Wikipedia, or any other source, when that reader decides whether the information provided by that source is trustworthy, authoritative, corroborated by information from other sources, etc. In that evaluative process, the information provided by Wikipedia or any other source may help the reader re-evaluate their current knowledge, and/or develop new knowledge. The distinction is not trivial. Is a research paper supposed to be an amalgamation of expert-vetted “knowledge” or is it to be a generative process requiring critical thinking while engaging with every source?
— Jim May 16, 05:15 PM #
Let’s be very clear: Wales has been speaking this same way since 2001 when Wikipedia was founded. Once or twice per year he brings up the notion again. Nothing has happened although it easily could have. I’m not holding my breath after this latest utterance either.
— Stephen Ewen May 17, 01:13 AM #
This issue isn’t about Wikipedia, it’s about developing our and our students’ media and information literacies.
— Suzanne Aurilio May 17, 09:48 AM #
@4: The feature is presently live on German Wikipedia. After other Wikipedias see how it works there, there’s no reason to assume it won’t spread suitably.
— David Gerard May 19, 09:57 AM #
Of course, Sanger sees Citizedium as the academic alternative to Wikipedia.
— Shawn May 19, 12:33 PM #
The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of course has some of the highest standards of authentication of any reference source, printed or online, so perhaps it is a special case. But it seems to me that Wikipedia could adapt a practice that the SEP introduced a while back: the periodic archiving of articles that pass muster, with links back to archived versions from the current one.
Having a vetting process followed by permanent archiving would greatly improve the citability of Wikipedia, and would also be a protection against vandalism and possible degradation.
— dionysos May 19, 01:01 PM #
Maybe Wales is being spooked by the attacks by the Israeli lobby media which doesn’t want anything bad – no matter how verifiable – said about Israel on wikipedia. Or maybe he’s just holding out vain to hope to that crew til it all blows over.
— Wiki Editor May 19, 06:45 PM #
Hmm, sounds like someone had his edits reverted.
— Shawn May 19, 07:22 PM #
lol
— Spanky Context May 20, 11:44 AM #