Wikipedia in the Classroom: Useful or Untrustworthy?
I have been interested in the discussion about Wikipedia for a long time so I am very glad to be writing this week. I found the study we read by Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg and the article by Alex Mueller very interesting; the study seemed to confirm some aspects of Wikipedia use I have long suspected. I myself am a rampant Wikipedia user and have been since high school. Even now, whenever I receive an assignment or decide to read a particular writer the first thing I do is hop on Wikipedia and read a little background information to get started and increase my contextual understanding. So, I seem to fit perfectly with Head and Eisenberg's focus groups.
During my time in high school and undergrad I (like many of us) and like the students in the survey/focus groups was told to never use Wikipedia. I always found this puzzling as it seemed perfectly innocuous to use as a preliminary research tool that I would not actually be citing. The reason we were told this, of course, was largely due to its lack of reliability or credibility. This struck and still strikes me as a bit odd as I am hard pressed to recall a specific circumstance where I found something in a more reputable source that directly contradicted my readings on Wikipedia. In his essay, "Wikipedia as Imago Mundi Alex Mueller discusses the misconception that the site can be edited by just anybody (12).
Similarly, my perspective has also been that Wikipedia generally gets things right for the most part. Should it be trusted in the way that scholarly journals or government sites for instance should be trusted? Probably not. But this raises an interesting question regarding Wikipedia usage. Wikipedia’s collaborative authorship is generally viewed as its primary weakness, as its authors cannot be “verified” to the same extent that a scholarly or government site’s authors can be, but is this really necessarily a weakness? For citation in a paper, maybe; but for early stage research use, no. In addition, this criticism also seems to hinge on the supposed reliability of alternative types of sources, such as scholarly journals and government sites. While these types of sources certainly reach a certain standard of credibility, is it the only standard? It seems that students are often taught the infallibility of these kinds of sources in direct contrast to the evil boogeyman of sites, Wikipedia.
I wonder if we do students a disservice by not familiarizing them with the limits of even those sources generally conceived of as “credible.” We tell them that government and scholarly sources are “reliable.” But what does that even mean? That they are infallible? That they speak the truth? That they operate without a bias? We, of course, know that this is not the case, but do our students know? I would argue, not always. When we demonize Wikipedia and elevate other types of sources we shroud the reality, which is that all sources are part of a larger political, social, and cultural community and none exists as fully credible or fully un-credible. The collaborative authorship of Wikipedia also promotes a more inclusive version of research and of the composition process than the almighty arm of government sources and the intellectual intimidation of scholarly ones. That said, Wikipedia does have its own problems, all of which are great fodder for class discussion, but it’s a discussion I think we should be having which is kind of hard if the site is outlawed.
So, thanks for indulging my rant. Some questions for thought...How do you feel about Wikipedia in the classroom? Do you or have you used it in your classrooms? Do you tell students not to use it? If so, why? Or why not? What are some ways that we can successfully integrate Wikipedia usage into our classes so that students are not feeling like they have to hide their use of it as Head and Eisenberg’s study and Alex's class discussions potentially suggests? Should we actively teach students to use Wikipedia productively in conjunction with other sources? What are some ways that we could go about this? In our era of “fake new” do we see a potential risk of students now viewing Wikipedia as more reliable than it really is, simply because it is more reliable than so much of what is now out there on social media?
I've included some links to sites below that our various commentaries on the merits and limits of Wikipedia's use in the classroom. These are examples of articles I would consider sharing with my students. I am a big fan of transparency in the pedagogy context and believe in at times sharing the pedagogical decision making process with my students, including them in the conversations, so they realize that these discussions do not happen in a vacuum.
Some Sites:
- To Use or Not to Use: Wikipedia in the Classroom
- Should University Students Use Wikipedia?
- Why Wikipedia Does Belong in the Classroom
Before I address some of your questions I wanted to share an experience I had with wikipedia. I was on a page about a specific psychology study and someone had changed all the nouns to "banana" and all the people to "monkey." Within minutes this was changed back to the correct information. So yes, easily manipulated, but also just as quickly rectified, and most people know that it wasn't monkeys and bananas that were the focus of the study.
ReplyDeleteNow for your questions: Should we actively teach students to use Wikipedia productively in conjunction with other sources? What are some ways that we could go about this?
I don't think it would be difficult at all to do this. The foot notes on wikipedia are often the first place to look when starting any research based project. Then, to teach students about bias, make sure they look at who is sponsoring the website, perhaps research the author and what their stance is on certain topics. That way they build a network of info they can use to build credibility in their own writing. They create their own context from the cursory context provided on wikipedia.
I agree with you. It's interesting though that the more time progresses, the more acceptable Wikipedia seems to become. I remember in high school and early on in college, I was told how inaccurate Wikipedia was. The fact that supposedly anyone can alter information on it makes it seem discredible, even though I'm pretty sure all alterations are confirmed before they are accepted. In fact, I don't think I ever encountered a piece of misinformation on Wikipedia. Regardless, now it seems whenever I talk to someone about Wikipedia, it's about how beneficial it can be for beginning the research process. I actually had that conversation last week.
ReplyDeleteI have a theory about this fervent dislike of Wikipedia though. You see, Wikipedia is a relatively accessible tool that almost anyone can access; that is to say, there is nothing particularly scholarly or academic about it. On the other hand, searching online databases for scholarly articles, which are much more difficult to read, and searching through the stacks at the library are not things everyone can easily do. They are part of the discourse of academia. Perhaps then teachers do not forbid students from using Wikipedia because it is a bad source-- almost every teacher I've spoken to about this admits that it's a fairly reliable source-- but rather because it is not a scholarly research tool.
In a classroom setting, I would explain this to students. I wouldn't villianize Wikipedia, but rather explain that it isn't solely an academic source and as such it cannot be used as a cited source. I would still encourage students to use Wikipedia when starting to do research though.
I generally tend to agree that wikipedia is a fine place to start for initial research, particularly, as many authors note, when you know nothing initially on the subject you are assigned to write about. I have told students before to check the wikipedia article in my classroom before, though they are not writing research papers they are writing text based arguments in the style on the New York Regents, so there has never been the question of using it as a source since it is not that type of essay. I can't imagine that I would change my stance on a research paper though I would have them not use it as a main source in the way I would not have them use any encyclopedia as a source.
ReplyDeleteAs for your point about credible sources, I think that is an important point to touch on. Particularly in the culture of America right now I think this needs to be a much larger discussion we have with students about evaluating sources for credibility that they come across rather than trusting everything that they are handed by people (including myself) who are in a position of power over them. I think specific wikipedia articles can be included in this discussion particularly when you examine the varying quality of specific articles (like complete versus incomplete articles).
I agree that Wikipedia is an exceedingly reliable source (as you might suspect:). That said, there are problems that have emerged in recent years. For example, studies have shown that the site is dominated by white male editors. To some degree this replicates the tech world itself and is unsurprising, but this dominance has consequences. Because the site relies on majority rule, legitimate edits from minority positions often get deleted. And it also means that entries that aren't deemed significant enough by the current cabal of editors won't even appear until the evidence is overwhelming. See for example, how the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, only the third woman to win the award, didn't even have a Wikipedia page before she won: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland-gerard-mourou-arthur-ashkin/571909/. I think this has become a significant problem, but one that goes well beyond Wikipedia - it is a problem within scholarship more generally. We should urge students to use Wikipedia, but we also need, I believe, to help students know HOW such knowledge gets formed and represented.
ReplyDeleteI actually love this topic. I DO teach Wikipedia usage in my classrooms and we DO have this discussion. You hit it right on the head when you say "When we demonize Wikipedia and elevate other types of sources we shroud the reality, which is that all sources are part of a larger political, social, and cultural community and none exists as fully credible or fully un-credible." I tell my students to take every single thing they read with a grain of salt. AND, even when the source is credible, to remember that every single source has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda is, what they operate from fundamentally, is key for evaluating the usefulness of that information. I teach them to red the wikipedia page and when they see a bit of information they resonate with, to click the link and check out the source. Then, make their own judgement as to whether or not that source is reputable. In this sense, wikipedia is great at the beginning stages of research. It points students in the correct direction to analyze sources and gather information. I see wikipedia as a resource amongst many for the information gathering stage of writing.
ReplyDeleteThere is actually a wikipedia article on criticisms of wikipedia. Is that too meta? Within this article it is pretty apparent which issues editors are putting more focus on, and those they are not. It's easy to see their biases. The sections of racial and gender biases and the controversy over pro-gun biases reflected in articles regarding firearms are some of the shortest. Seeing this level of inequity does bring to light a useful pedagogical tool. We can use this conflict to illustrate biases in research to students, and how these biases can render skewed content. Moreover, we can use this to show students how to diversify research, and to critically question crowd-sourced or even academic content.
ReplyDeleteAnd heres the dose of reality: Students are going to use it anyway (we are all proof of this), so why not bring it out in the open, and use it constructively.
Hey Tim!
ReplyDeleteI really like to think of Wikipedia as a source and how I would think about it as a teacher in the future. To try to find an answr fir myself (and hopefully for everyone), the questions that are asked here go back toi the question of who authorizes knowledge and its continous conflict woth the age of technology and the free-sharing sphere that is the internet.
I completely agree with you that the lack of "credibility" should not be a major flaw as Wikipedia can be a good source to access the governmental and scholarly sources that was used to write the article. It is just that it clashes with the age old pedagogical model of "teacher knows best", which is an allegory of there being an "authority" that determones what is the "right" sources if knowledge abd what is not. The contents may be the same, but that "authoritative" stamp is needed to have that final conformation.
Therefore, the question we should grappple with is why that "authority" exists and how it can influence teacher and students in recieving sources like wikipedia.
Tim, I agree with you completely that the stigma of Wikipedia use has become a little dramatic. Yes, it is a website that anyone and everyone can edit. Information can be uploaded or removed. However, there is much more to Wikipedia than most people realize. There are people whose entire job is to monitor these changes and additions and make certain they have credible value before they can stay. I know this because I myself had to create a Wikipedia page for a history class assignment. The submission was about a sacrificial Aztec stone which needed to have at least three primary sources, hyperlinks, and a picture so viewers would have a better understanding of my post. I recall having to wait for approval from Wikipedia before they would let it be seen by all. So, to transition to your question about whether Wikipedia should be utilized within the class room, I think it can be a wonderful tool to teach students the importance of knowing what is considered credible information, and how important it is to create content that is deemed credible. I personally don't use Wikipedia, but I do know that any rely on it to find scholarly sources, links to other topics, and to better understand a concept that may have been vague to them.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Tim! For me, Wikipedia has always been a great website for me to go and get some basic information in simplistic terms. From there, I am able to go down the rabbit whole that is research. I find it a shame that teachers that I have head, especially in high school, told me to never use Wikipedia and only stick with '.org' and '.edu' sites. Yes, Wikipedia might not always be as reliable as those sources because they are not written by "scholars" or "professors," however who is to say that these '.org' and '.edu' sites are not as unbiased as we assume they are?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, of course I think that Wikiapedia should be taught and used in the classroom. It should be explained what the site is, how it runs, and the cautions the student should be aware off, but it should not be disregarded completely.
Wikipedia is definitely a source I encourage my students to use, especially at the beginning of reading a text, but I think Alex's point is extremely important: Even crowd-sourced material has a slant and a bias. But I do think this is a really great opportunity to talk about how information is sourced, processed, and presented, and I think there's a lot of potential for using Wikipedia for exercises in the English classroom -- specifically composition, maybe?
ReplyDeleteI like Maddie's point a lot that students are going to use this source anyway, so it's our job to guide them, not pretend like there's a reality where it isn't used at all.
Good stuff, Tim! I would agree with your point that Wikipedia is a great tool for a starting point of research. One thing that I find that gets ignored in many discussion of Wikipedia is that almost all Wikipedia pages contain a References and Further Reading section at the bottom. There is clear citation of outside sources, typically those government and traditional academic sources you mentioned. These sections can also function as a great launch pad for students to move to other resources during their research process. Writing a research paper, like any other for of writing, is a process. What is so unique about the research process, especially these days, is that it can branch in any number of ways as students navigate the hypertext that is the internet. Sometimes the initial notion or thesis that a student sat down with when starting a paper can change as they fall down the proverbial "rabbit hole". I see no problem with Wikipedia used as a resource in academic study. Like any resource, you need to investigate its credibility. I don't see the problem.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, Wikipedia is definitely a source I use and is something I think we can use in the class--it gives us a great opportunity to teach how to use sources and evaluate for validity/reliability.
ReplyDeleteOne anxiety that I have, and I think a few of us have, is about the control Wikipedia has on what it presents. Paradoxically, this is an anxiety that grows as Wikipedia becomes more reliable with its speedy erasing of false/joking revisions. This erasing is obviously helpful in getting us to the information we want, but it also reveals that Wikipedia is in someway curating what we see--so, they can shape the information we receive, even though I think this is done by majority rule on edits (?). This all makes me concerned about Wikipedia manipulating information like almost any information source does. What's good is that it affirms what we seem to all be doing: not just letting students use Wikipedia, but teaching them how to use it (and how to critically use any source).
Hi Tim. Thanks for this post. Like you (and everyone else, it seems), I absolutely go to Wikipedia for preliminary research and to get a quick and comprehendible description of topics. I also often go to the citations in Wikipedia pages to find out what sources are being used. Although this helps me to see where this information is coming from (and therefore to make a judgment about the information being presented), it's also a great way to collect relevant research. In terms of its use in the classroom, I think that we should try to integrate it with a critical lens. I can't remember where this is from (although it seems like it could have come out of a reading in our class), but I recall a teacher editing a Wikipedia page as a class to demonstrate to students that 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative resources and 2) students can contribute to critical research conversations. An exercise like this could have merit in the classroom in terms of dealing critically with information from Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteTo echo many of the other comments - the biases that exist on Wikipedia have to be made explicit in the classroom, just as the potential benefits for research should be brought into class discussion.
ReplyDeleteTo Maddie and Molly's point - they're going to use it anyway, so it's not productive for us to simply tell them not to. I tell my students to use Wikipedia AND Sparknotes, especially when they're trying to wrap their heads around a new and difficult reading or topic, but reading these comments has made it clear to me that I should also acknowledge the fact that most of the edits are made by white men (and probably those who have had access to higher education, or who are at least aware of the most widely accepted academic critical conversations surrounding topics). I think this is all the more reason for us to encourage our students to try to suggest edits of their own.