As a scholar and educator in higher education, I naturally eschew the use of Wikipedia as a source. I discourage students from citing it in research papers, or any other web-based sources, and push them to seek out scholarly sources. I explain that peer-review is the key to producing credible scholarly work, and that other publications simply do not have the rigor necessary to use as primary source material. And I also note that the credibility of those posting information in Wikipedia is as questionable as their true identities.
But I have to confess....
I use Wikipedia.
A lot.
However, I'll argue that I know how to use it. I know how to turn a critical eye on what I find there. I know to research further anything I find questionable or would like to use in something I am preparing. And I never quote the cite.
I treat Wikipedia for what it is. It is a reference tool. Scholars would not cite Encyclopedia Britannica in a paper, but they would use it to check what the capital of Uganda is. I pop into Wikipedia regularly to check on the dates of events, get the full name of public figures, get rough demographic figures on a region, and a host of other questions. And I see nothing wrong with this, because when I get to the point were I want to cite something I learned about in Wikipedia, I will be looking for the original source material to cite.
Archdiver, I think you make great points in your post. I think that Wikipedia is seen as a taboo source to use for researchers, but it really is a great starting point for research. What I want to get rid of is this taboo nature of Wikipedia in the secondary school classroom; it raises a generation of people who almost have this secret experience with Wikipedia but no one ever admits to it! I think your points are excellent.
ReplyDeleteIn my Theories of Cognition and Learning class, I just read a lecture given by a colleague of Dr. Robert Gagne, in which he cited Wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised. I think it's a bit snobbish that we all use it but think it's taboo to cite as a reference. I agree we should double check the info if at all dubious but isn't it a bit hypocritical of us?
ReplyDeleteExactly. Exactly.
ReplyDeleteI do my best to be transparent about wikipedia use. We all use it. It's a great starting point (find keywords, follow some reference links, etc.). I don't tend to trust it outright for accuracy and contextual use because I've seen bad entries (triangulation, for example, although it's been greatly improved).
When I find a useful entry, I will link to it and share it with a class. Why not?
When I teach classes with research papers, I stress that it is not a suitable resource for referencing in most cases (there are exceptions when you're actually making a point about wikipedia, crowdsourcing, public beliefs/reaction, etc.) ... but not because it is online or crowdsourced. The issue, rather, is that it is a secondary source, an encyclopedia. And as you note above, we don't cite Brittanica, either. Primary sources are the goal. I wish instructors did a better job of teaching students how to source a paper and stopped just saying "no wikipedia."
I just am amazed that students in their third and fourth years still haven't learned this!
ReplyDeleteI like how you described it as well. I think wikipedia is a great starting point. I use it way too much. However, I would never cite this. I think students need to be taught (because apparently some still don't know) how to use wikipedia to its fullest potential.
ReplyDelete