Sunday
July 8, 2007
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Jan. 26
A Stand Against Wikipedia
As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia.
Related stories
- A Provost and Librarian Walk Into a Meeting..., June 26
- Bill Advances to Reverse Bush on Documents, March 12
- Broadening the Bush Library Debate, Feb. 6
- History vs. Hagiography, Jan. 10
- Scholarly Archive or Ideological Center?, Dec. 18
While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia — while convenient — may not be trustworthy.
“As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation,” he said.
The department made what Wyatt termed a consensus decision on the issue after discussing problems professors were seeing as students cited incorrect information from Wikipedia in papers and on tests. In one instance, Wyatt said, a professor noticed several students offering the same incorrect information, from Wikipedia.
There was some discussion in the department of trying to ban students from using Wikipedia, but Wyatt said that didn’t seem appropriate. Many Wikipedia entries have good bibliographies, Wyatt said. And any absolute ban would just be ignored. “There’s the issue of freedom of access,” he said. “And I’m not in the business of promulgating unenforceable edicts.”
Wyatt said that the department did not specify punishments for citing Wikipedia, and that the primary purpose of the policy was to educate, not to be punitive. He said he doubted that a paper would be rejected for having a single Wikipedia footnote, but that students would be told that they shouldn’t do so, and that multiple violations would result in reduced grades or even a failure. “The important point that we wish to communicate to all students taking courses and submitting work in our department in the future is that they cite Wikipedia at their peril,” he said.
He stressed that the objection of the department to Wikipedia wasn’t its online nature, but its unedited nature, and he said students need to be taught to go for quality information, not just convenience.
The frustrations of Middlebury faculty members are by no means unique. Last year, Alan Liu, a professor of English at the University of California at Santa Barbara, adopted a policy that Wikipedia “is not appropriate as the primary or sole reference for anything that is central to an argument, complex, or controversial.” Liu said that it was too early to tell what impact his policy is having. In explaining his rationale — which he shared with an e-mail list — he wrote that he had “just read a paper about the relation between structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism in which every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any need to read a primary work or even a critical work.”
Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”
Ordonez acknowledged that, given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia writing and editing, “there is no guarantee an article is 100 percent correct,” but she said that the site is shifting its focus from growth to improving quality, and that the site is a great resource for students. “Most articles are continually being edited and improved upon, and most contributors are real lovers of knowledge who have a real desire to improve the quality of a particular article,” she said.
Experts on digital media said that the Middlebury history professors’ reaction was understandable and reflects growing concern among faculty members about the accuracy of what students find online. But some worry that bans on citing Wikipedia may not deal with the underlying issues.
Roy Rosenzweig, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, did an analysis of the accuracy of Wikipedia for The Journal of American History, and he found that in many entries, Wikipedia was as accurate or more accurate than more traditional encyclopedias. He said that the quality of material was inconsistent, and that biographical entries were generally well done, while more thematic entries were much less so. Like Ordonez, he said the real problem is one of college students using encyclopedias when they should be using more advanced sources.
“College students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in their papers,” he said. “That’s not what college is about. They either should be using primary sources or serious secondary sources.”
In the world of college librarians, a major topic of late has been how to guide students in the right direction for research, when Wikipedia and similar sources are so easy. Some of those who have been involved in these discussions said that the Middlebury history department’s action pointed to the need for more outreach to students.
Lisa Hinchliffe, head of the undergraduate library and coordinator of information literacy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said that earlier generations of students were in fact taught when it was appropriate (or not) to consult an encyclopedia and why for many a paper they would never even cite a popular magazine or non-scholarly work. “But it was a relatively constrained landscape,” and students didn’t have easy access to anything equivalent to Wikipedia, she said. “It’s not that students are being lazy today. It’s a much more complex environment.”
When she has taught, and spotted footnotes to sources that aren’t appropriate, she’s considered that “a teachable moment,” Hinchliffe said. She said that she would be interested to see how Middlebury professors react when they get the first violations of their policy, and said she thought there could be positive discussions about why sources are or aren’t good ones. That kind of teaching, she said, is important “and can be challenging.”
Steven Bell, associate librarian for research and instructional services at Temple University, said of the Middlebury approach: “I applaud the effort for wanting to direct students to good quality resources,” but he said he would go about it in a different way.
“I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”
Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”
Comments
Why not ban professors who ban indiscriminately?
Kudos to Roy Rosenzweig for rightly pointing out that the core of the problem is not Wikipedia and the quality or integrity of its information. It’s that we haven’t successfully communicated to students that citing any general knowledge encyclopedia—including Britannica—in college-level research is a mistake. Blaming Wikipedia is a red herring. I wish as much attention were devoted to the challenge of teaching effective research practices, including the dubious practice of prescriptions like this one.
David Blakesley, Dr. at Purdue, at 6:05 am EST on January 26, 2007
If a school is admitting students that think that Wikipedia is an acceptable source, the school is essentially admitting that it will admit anyone with a pulse. How can someone get though high school and not know the basics of library research? So, this makes Middlebury look bad.
Unfortunately, the policy is next to unenforceable, since students can simply just NOT cite something.
Larry, at 7:45 am EST on January 26, 2007
Wiki woes
I’ve contributed to a lot of the American history articles in Wikipedia. The quality of information is usually better than encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta, and usually Wiki has far more detail. Best of all Wiki has many links internally and to valuable outside web sources. It has many long bibliographies that are much better than students usually find, with links to sources (like JSTOR) that can get student research launched faster than any other source. The problem with the Middlebury “solution” is that it is negative as they provide no alternatives for their students.
Richard Jensen, at 7:45 am EST on January 26, 2007
Nice
I’m very pleased to see that someone found a way to name-drop Mott the Hoople on Inside Higher Ed. Good job, Christian!
“Rock and roll’s a loser’s game, it mesmerizes and I can’t explain the reasons for the sights and for the sounds....”
Tom McCool, at 8:01 am EST on January 26, 2007
Mr. Jensen:
You don’t know that Middlebury doesn’t provide alternatives; you know only that the article doesn’t report that they do. The article also points out—correctly—that Wikipedia can be used as an initial source, but students needs to check what they find and to find source material wherever possible. Middlebury history faculty may well explain this to students (as I do).
Larry, unfortunately, Middlebury doesn’t require portfolios for admission, so they can’t check on the quality of research each student has done. Also, I recently took a graduate education course for which Wikipedia was considered an acceptable source for the final research paper. (I managed to condense 5 pages of complaint about the class, including quotations, into 2, which I sent to the director.) If explicit use of Wikipedia is so widespread, Middlebury might be left with no students if they refused to admit anyone who used it.
Judith, Alternatives, at 8:45 am EST on January 26, 2007
What if students judged their professors?
How about educating students to become better judges of what they find on Wikipedia. And, perhaps when they find errors, how to correct them.
When I am using Wikipedia in a field in which I am knowledgeable, I sometimes enjoy discerning who in the field has contributed what part of an article – but if students get to that point, they might become able to make independent judgments about what their professors are telling them – or about the reading they are being assigned by their professors.
John LobellPratt Institute
John Lobell, Professor at Pratt Institute, at 8:45 am EST on January 26, 2007
Wikipedia isn’t the issue
Wikipedia is not at issue here. The issues are the ignorant students who think they can cite tertiary sources in an academic paper and the professors who let them get away with it.
Why is this even an article about Wikipedia? Citing “World Book” would be twice as bad.
Dominic Moore, Publicist, at 8:45 am EST on January 26, 2007
Jensen
I agree, Wikipedia has a lot of links to quotable references. so what’s the big deal? Just quote the information sources that Wiki sends you to, without citing Wiki as a origin of the information.
Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 8:46 am EST on January 26, 2007
You mean there are Profs that accept papers citing Wikipedia?
Wait a minute, this story must be a joke because when I looked up Middlebury University on Wikipedia, it said it said the college went bankrupt and was closed...
For four years it has been my policy to give an F to any student paper that uses Wikipedia as a academic source (students may cite it as a source of folk knowledge). But I go much further than this, sometimes I project wikipedia above me and enter convincing but bogus information into existing entries (change dates, killing spouses, or adding the influence of tidal forces of Visigoths or plagues throughout history) to show students why they shouldn’t trust this public graffiti board. Believe me, not even Mott the Hopple is safe...
Prof. Von Grunt Truck, at 9:00 am EST on January 26, 2007
Teachable Moments
“When she has taught, and spotted footnotes to sources that aren’t appropriate, she’s considered that ‘a teachable moment,’ Hinchliffe said.”
I agree with Hinchliffe that finding inadequate sources in an academic paper is a teachable moment. The student’s mistaken use of a non-peer-reviewed source can be pointed out and she can learn to cite proper academic evidence.
Educators can even take it one step further — use Wikipedia to foster critical thinking skills. Anyone can edit Wikipedia — maybe a good instructional strategy would be to have students look at specific articles, do research in primary and academic sources, and actually fix what is inaccurate.
I’m glad the article pointed out good and bad aspects of Wikipedia. I’m hoping that the negative points do not hinder the use of the technology itself — student created Wikis can be an excellent elearning instructional strategy.
Betzi Bateman, at 9:00 am EST on January 26, 2007
Wikipedia
I just gave a presentation on Wikipedia for students in my historical methods class. I mentioned the study done by the journal Nature that showed both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica contained factual errors. I then showed them how Wikipedia gets edited, as well as controls against vandalism of websites. My intent was not to necessarily endorse Wikipedia, but to have an honest discussion about its uses and abuses. I would rather students say they used a Wikipedia entry for the bibliographic information than claim they found these citations on their own.
Heather Prescott, Central CT State University, at 9:15 am EST on January 26, 2007
Wikipedia ban
For some time my clooeagues and I have cautioned students that Wikipedia must be used cautiously. In my classes I explain how it works and the strengths and weaknesses that arise from this open system. I tell them that it may be a good place to start exploring some topic but that they should not cite it, because of the potential risk. As is true in other cases when instructions are not followed, Wikipedia citations detract from portential grades. It is worthwhile to discuss briefly the ethics of entering bad information. I hope the individual who demonstrates the way such faulty entries can esily be added will also clean up this “grafitti” immediately aferwards. Like Blanche DuBois, Wikipedia depends on the kindness of strangers.
Kathryn Kemp, Is this news?, at 9:30 am EST on January 26, 2007
Why just Wikipedia?
Quote:“College students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in their papers,” he said. “That’s not what college is about. They either should be using primary sources or serious secondary sources.”
This is the real crux of it... why are we debating the merits of Wikipedia? It’s good for some uses and bad for others, but regardless, any secondary source should be treated with some skepticism. Certainly for a term paper one’s sources should be something other than *any* kind of encyclopedia. This is not grade school...
Chris, Penn State, at 10:00 am EST on January 26, 2007
Another Option? Marginalizing
Professors could simply ban certain questionable sources.
But maybe it would be better simply to inform students that dubious on line sources cannot be used as primary sources. Maybe not even as secondary sources, but at most a tertiary source.It can be required that the weight of the paper in terms of arguments,expositions, critiques (etc) must depend on primary and secondary sources—all thoroughly documented.
The dubious sourcers could be marginalized rather than banned.
R.Birt, Dr., at 10:00 am EST on January 26, 2007
Excellent (and Easy) Academic Wiki Alternatives
As a teaching librarian, I appreciated Lisa Hinchliffe’s comment on “teachable moments". Wiki has provided me with many such moments, leading to some great class discussions about reliable information sources.
And students DO now have easy access to reliable alternatives. Solid academic encyclopedias abound, both in print and online, and are an excellent and reliable alternative to Wiki. Talk to your local librarian.
Barry Cull, Information Services Librarian at University of New Brunswick, Canada, at 10:05 am EST on January 26, 2007
What’s so bad?
Rather than using this is an opportunity for learning about information literacy, the professors, in typical fashion, take a punative stance towards an instrument that has for the first time in history opened up knowledge to everyone, as opposed to keeping it hidden and locked away in dusty old ivory towers. Specialized knowledge is no excuse for job security.
I agree that Wikipedia is not always the most accurate resource, but it is the most accessible. Where is it written that learning has to be difficult and hard work? Why can’t learning be interesting and fun and use tools that engage students, instead of turning them away? Professors may think that being dull and obtuse equates with learning and intelligence, but I disagree...and there is no evidence for it.
If professors do not like Wikipedia, then they should come up with something better. Then again, that would require they actually know something about how people learn, as opposed to extensive knowledge in their subject matter. They know it will never happen, so it is much easier to prohibit the learning tool than engage it. How sad.
PS, at 10:35 am EST on January 26, 2007
Wicked Wiki
Before I got the nice paying job I currently hold, I would tell my students to use mostly Spark Notes...encyclopedias and journals and books are too wordy and confusing. I always had A to A- students at the end of each semester.
nate zukerman, university president at anon, at 10:35 am EST on January 26, 2007
I applaud this policy, particularly the portion of it that involves actually teaching students how to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources. However, I do have some concerns: 1. When I explained the limits of Wikipedia to my students, many of them simply shifted to other websites that syndicate Wikipedia content, like answers.com.2. Telling students not to cite the source could also mean that they continue to use it but simply do not provide citations—perhaps even more problematic than the original use itself.
ML, at 10:50 am EST on January 26, 2007
re citations to Wikipedia
A parallel debate is going on in the legal community. Should people cite to Wikipedia in legal briefs or other court papers where documentation for factual assertions is customary? Similarly, in the law school context, in law review articles, student term papers, or research exercises? The general standard is to cite a primary source if possible, secondary sources if necessary. Legal opinions and briefs are full of citations to treatises and legal encyclopedias, all of which are, of course, edited works that exist in fixed hard-copy formats. To me, one of the problems of citing to Wikipedia is that the cite has time-limited value. That is, by the time somebody is reading a document and wants to go to a cited source for confirmation or more information, the Wikipedia entry may have changed substantially and the very point for which its was cited may not longer be part of the entry or may state something entirely different. The changeability of Wikipedia makes it a problematic source for me. When I noted this to an info-technology maven on our faculty, she said that Wikipedia entries exist in versions, and one can cite to a particular version (perhaps just as one would cite to a particular edition of a treatise that has gone through multiple editions, such as Williston on Contracts). Clearly, as our information technology evolves, the rules for citation will have to evolve with them.But getting back to a main point made by many above, students writing history papers for a college course should be focusing on primary sources when possible and edited books by reputable authorities when primary sources are not available. I would assume that is part of the instruction in historical methodology that students are supposed to be getting by taking a college-level history course with a research paper requirements....
Art Leonard, Professor at New York Law School, at 11:05 am EST on January 26, 2007
empower students
Effective pedagogy would allow/require students to reject Wikipedia and other encylopedia as a source. Blanket condemnations are a blunt tool that inhibits the development of student autonomy and encourages the growth of student passivity.
anderson, at 12:35 pm EST on January 26, 2007
I’m teaching a new course right now in which we are building a wiki: the students are doing mostly original research with nineteenth-century materials and are putting their findings up on our course wiki. My hope is that when the course ends, I’ll have created some ideal contributors to Wikipedia.
My feeling is that the purpose of citing a source is to enable the reader to judge the authority of the source. I agree that Wikipedia (like the Encyclopedia Britannica), isn’t an appropriate source for a college research paper, especially because it’s unedited. But banning a single source and expecting that to help create educated students is like banning a single food from your diet and expecting to lose weight.
Amanda French, Assistant Professor at NCSU, at 12:35 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Prof. Grunt von Truck and Online Vandalism
Prof. Von Grunt Truck, please do not pee in my community pool just to demonstrate that people shouldn’t drink the water.
When you show your students how easy it is to add junk to Wikipedia, I hope that you push “Show Preview” instead of “Save Page.”
Dennis G. Jerz, Assoc. Professor of English — New Media Journalism at Seton Hill University, at 1:00 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Prof Von Grunt Truck, it is Middlebury COLLEGE, not University. The problem with your search was not the encyclopedia, but the searcher. Wikipedia is, like any encyclopedia, a place to begin researching a topic, not a place to end it. If encyclopedias had no role to play in research, they would not be found in university libraries. Every search starts somewhere. The research value of Wikipedia is not to be found it what it tells us about a topic, but rather where it sends us to really learn about it.
Michael, at 1:00 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Hear Hear!
Students need to learn that going to the original source (as much as possible) is always the best way to research. Accuracy is important, and I don’t think most students understand how wrong secondary sources can be. Instead, students trust anything in black and white.
I don’t think we can fairly draw conclusions about the students’ intelligence or Middlebury’s standards, as Larry does. Simmer down, Larry. Even in high schools with strong academics, standards for research papers can be lax since test scores are often considered more important. Furthermore, know-it-all students (and I was one of them!) have the tendency to ignore teacher instruction on issues just like this. Hopefully, Middlebury can get students’ attention this way.
Meegan B., at 1:21 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Really?
“Should people cite to Wikipedia in legal briefs or other court papers where documentation for factual assertions is customary?”
I cannot even imagine citing Wikipedia in any court filing. Is this question really being entertained by law school instructors? Are people training law students to rely on Wikipedia in legal practice?
JBM, at 1:30 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Authoritative Sources
I think Wiki’s modesty is refreshing. I am far more worried about the search for the “real” authority. There is some comfort in genuinely well peer-reviewed materials in a given discipline. But we have to face the fact that, as Henry Bauer notes (Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method), “Science[in any given field] is what scientists say is science.” Try the following for a great secondary source:"The Dictionary of Disorder” by Alix Spiegel. An absolute howler of an expose of the almost total unreliability of “authority” in psychotherapy, the various editions of the DSM overseen by Robert Spitzer. It is not the fault of the worthies who put together the DSM that lawyers and social workers, welfare offices and insurance companies treat the DSM as a bible so much as the need of courts, agencies and their actors to have some “authority” to appeal to. An awful lot of current economic theory in this country has elements which have been refuted by nobel prize winning economists. But the need for some “authoritative system” is so great that the discipline simply ignores the counter arguments, appeals to the “robustness” of their theory and proceeds in mental peace. Because of the importance of feeling a peace with abortion, hardly anyone wants to go back and look at the actual studies showing increased risk of cancer. So they cite some NIH white-wash as “The Truth". Original careful research, peer-reviewed and argued out is no guarantee of respect.And as to sources, consider that Spiegel’s piece appeared in The New Yorker, when it should have been enshrined in every office that uses the DSM to determine the destinies of humans.
Stanislaus Dundon, Professor Emeritus at CSU Sacramento, at 2:05 pm EST on January 26, 2007
I don’t agree with instructors banning the use of a research tool (correct or incorrect). Part of research is identifying the truths from fiction. If the professors are so concerned about the accuracy of a source they should be active educators and correct the information with their supporting factual data. If it is their stated opinion then it is just that their opinion.
I feel this is another major reason we have an educational problem in our country. We have instructors/professors that will complain but will do little to correct to problem. They sit and wait for others to correct the problem, and critize if the other gets it wrong based upon bad or flawed data.
SAS, at 2:05 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Pelican Shit
Wikipedia is a leading source of information about pelican shit. Kenneth sits upon the rock.
Billy Bob Bluxo, at 2:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
require wiki
I turned the wiki issue on its head and required students to read wikipedia sources, to read scholarly literature about how wiki works, and to compare a specific wiki article to at least three other encyclopedias as well as peer-reviewed academic literature—in effect, having each of them duplicate Roy Rosensweig’s study in the JAH. Most students arrived at the fundamental question that wikipedia raises: why do we trust what ANYONE says? Some decided they believed in the “wisdom of the crowd,” but many realized that expertise plays a role in shaping knowlege. Virtually every student determined that Wikipedia was only a starting point, and they could articulate why that was true—conclusions that they reached on their own. Prohibition never works.
christopher miller, at 2:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
‘A Stand Against Wikipedia’
Giving students a list of what sources they can or cannot use seems to be of very limited value. We want, I think, to teach them how to evaluate sources and think critically. I tell them that Google/wikipedia/Britannica/textbooks are excellent places to start but that they then need to move on from there. Also, rather than tell them that a particular source is useless I challenge them to get confirmation from one or two other sources. Getting students used to comparing sources on particular topics teaches them about the topic itself andg gives them a better chance at getting the facts right. It also teaches them about the different biases and the different ways you can tell the same story.I also give them extra credit for finding errors in the textbook ...
Kate, PhD Candidate, at 2:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Perhaps there is an opportunity here. An outright ban of Wikipedia seems extreme, and academically stifling. What would be alternatives that could contribute back to the Global knowledge base?
How about the following? Go ahead and use Wikipedia as a reference, but you are required to cross-reference any facts with other sources. If there are conflicts, do further research to determine fact from inaccuracies. Students would then be required to submit these conflicts to Wikipedia, and hopefully over time, Wikipedia as a resource will become more credible in its accuracy.
The issue isn’t “don’t use a participatory knowledge-base as a resource". The core issue seems credibility or the resource. Why not be pro-active and contribute to building more accuracy into our collective resources? Embrace the global collective that has emerged from the Internet, rather than shun away from.
Eric Hammond, at 3:15 pm EST on January 26, 2007
students should be taught that no source of information is absolutely safe. In the sciences even top journals abound with errors. For example if you were to look at articles in the journal nature from the 1980’s you would doubtless find many articles claiming things that today we have well established are untrue, this is not reason for dispair however, the answer is simply to consult multiple independent sources and consider the evidence. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources all have their place and wikipedia certainly does as well. If instead of complaining about wikipedia we all helped correct errors we found in it, we could make it an even more valuable resource for the world.
PS Prof. Von Grunt Truck, i hope you dont actually publish these inaccuracies...as an educator I would hope that you could appreciate the worlds largest collaborative effort to freely disseminate knowledge. It may not be perfect but I think it can help many people if we let it.
MB, Not even NATURE is safe at UC, at 3:36 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Flexible Wiki
Citing Wiki as a source is problematic for me because of the easy to change nature of the information. It is possible / probable that between the information gathering stage and then original citation and when someone reads the article and reviews the citation that the text in questions can be changed. Regardless of the accuracy of the information its ability to morph over time without some way to “fix” it poses major challenges.
Miklos Gaal, at 3:36 pm EST on January 26, 2007
A Stand For Wikipedia
Call me crazy, but I’m assigning Wikipedia as my textbook in Western Civ this semester. Yikes! you might well say, but before you give up on me as hopelessly deluded, read the post in my blog (cited below) in which I describe the method to my madness.
Mills Kelly, Prof. at George Mason University, at 3:36 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Comment on: ‘A Stand Against Wikipedia
Dear Scott,
I read your article on Wikipedia and I’m glad that this information is getting out to students. I am a doctoral student who during my Master’s program, constantly used Wikipedia as a source and it affected my grades fiercely but no one directed me away from it or explained that it was not an accurate source.
Students don’t realize that even the creator of Wikipedia has issued statement that the site should not be used as a scholarly source as it is written and updated by readers and the content may not be accurate.
If students want to learn a subject correctly, they should go to real sources like books, journal articles, and more and learn the information that they are seeking correctly. With the technology we have today, full academic libraries can be accessed from our homes. Many schools have access to them and they are open for their student’s use.
Laurelee Curcione, at 3:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
“To me, one of the problems of citing to Wikipedia is that the cite has time-limited value.”
Wikipedia is far better on this score than almost any other online resource, because it stores a history of old versions of the pages. If you put the date and time of your access in the citation (as you should for online sources), then I can go back and see exactly what the page in question looked like when you cited it. I can also look at any changes made since, and see if they affect what you were citing it for. With any non-wiki website, the page I look at could be totally different from the one you cited, and there wouldn’t be any way for me to know.
Chris, at 4:01 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Prof. Von Grunt Truck vandalizing Wikipedia?
Well, Google doesn’t know of a professor with that name.
So, we either have a troll, or do we have an insignificant professor who admits of vandalizing Wikipedia, just because he can?
Sam Johnston, at 4:13 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Thank God for Professor Von Grunt Truck
I’m glad that Prof. Von Grunt Truck shows students just how untrustworthy wikipedia is. Those of you who are claiming he is doing something wrong must not understand what a horrible source wikipedia is.
When I teach research methods courses I teach students that people being interviewed will often lie when asked certain questions. I demonstrate this in class and I encourage them to never rely on survey data for any information that can be gathered by other means.
And by the way, if you can’t find Prof. von Grunt Truck in wikipedia...just wait a few days or weeks and check wikipedia, I am sure you will fine a very scholarly and authoritative entry on his life, times and accomplishments.
Elwood, at 4:50 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Prudence
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to force the student to collaborate the information on Wikipedia with more sources.
This would really teach a student how to research for information and have that information be valid.
I think learning how to research is as important as the information they are searching for.
TheSol.com
TheSol.com, at 4:50 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Citing Wikipedia (using a particular revision)
Most people recognize the value in having a dynamic encyclopedia. You many not realize that you can cite an article, for example, the featured article today about the [[history of saffron]] (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_saffron), but also a particular version of the article, by using the “cite this article” link in the toolbox on the left side of the screen. This enables a professor to assign a particular revision of an article for reading, with the confidence it is what the professor was actually reading when they decided to assign it. Also, the “history” tab for the article, which is present for every wiki page, allows a reader to use the “diff” function to see the precise additions and deletions from one version to the next.
Technically, Wikipedia is a massive database of text documents with metadata about versions. This type of version control is often overlooked in favor of the typical manner of reading, by default, the most recent version. Precision is possible for those who care to try.
Thank you for the great comments about Wikipedia!
Brad Patrick, General Counsel at Wikimedia Foundation, at 4:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Oh noes!1!!!1!
he had “just read a paper about the relation between structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism in which every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any need to read a primary work or even a critical work.”
Oh the humanities! Someone’s not going to read a critical work on decontruction, what are we going to dos!?
BlogReader, at 6:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Huzzah for Mills Kelly and other professors who are more interested in teaching a new generation of scholars how to think and create knowledge.
Students need to understand that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, but it is a great place to start looking for information. Every fact in Wikipedia *should* be citable, so Wikipedia need not be the final source for any information. Wikipedia is new technology, much like handheld calculators were a generation ago. Institutions would do well to jump out in front of this technology and teach students acceptable uses for the technology so that it doesn’t become a crutch.
Jon K, at 6:55 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Wikiality is for Postmodern Bushite Nitwits
Mills Kelly: OK, you are crazy. Information about your class has been posted on various lists of wikiartists who are slowly infiltrating and transforming wikipedia to a warehouse of intentionally distorted information. They are thrilled to be adding a layer of garbage to your overpriced elite classroom soon to be filled with students learning the “value” of wikiality. Have fun explaining this to your dean and tenure committee.
Sam Johnston: Sure enough, Prof. von Grunt Truck does turn out to be a real person:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruntruck
Prof. David Ossman, Ralph Spoilsport Prof. of Auto Sales at F.S.T., at 9:36 pm EST on January 26, 2007
Instead of banning Wikipedia...
...you could just design assessments that make sources like Wikipedia redundant. If there’s any room for an encyclopedic regurgitation of accepted knowledge, then an encyclopedia will always fit the bill...
Meanwhile, banning Wikipedia sounds a bit like intellectual censorship to me.
The article has a link to Alan Liu’s discussion of Wikipedia on the Humanist Discussion Group mailing list. Years ago, the same group all but wrote off the idea that any serious scholarship could come out of presses like Peter Lang and Mellen (http://tinyurl.com/2pqj8w).
Perhaps Middlebury College will consider banning books from those presses next?
And, while they’re at it, perhaps they’ll also consider banning those edited collections that *seemed* such a good idea at the time of the conference...
It occurs to me that all scholarship, however well-researched, is provisional and has the potential to contain factual errors or be unreliable: perhaps students should stop reading altogher?
Puplet, at 5:36 am EST on January 27, 2007
missing the point
The goal of undergrad students is NOT to produce the best scholarship they can. It is to produce whatever crap might satisfy the idiot teaching assistant who’s going to grade their paper and then get on with their real lives.
Wikipedia suits those requirements most of the time. A good library would, too, but with a great deal more investment of time and effort. And for what? To get an A- instead of a B-? When there are other classes that require attention and maybe even a job, the cost-benefit analysis comes down in favor of Wikipedia.
Produce something online that IS authoritative and that does not cost any money and Wikipedia will become much less attractive. Otherwise, it is here to stay.
irv, at 1:11 pm EST on January 27, 2007
A B-?
Well, I am an idiot teaching assistant. I suggest you deal with the students who complain after their heartbreaking work nets them a B-. You will find they tend to think they deserved a higher grade no matter what they turned in. As far as wikipedia, I can’t believe this is even a subject up for discussion. On my last syllabus I wrote—in capital letters—"any use of an internet source will result in a 10% reduction in the grade. Any use of Wikipedia will result in a 20% reduction.” The papers improved dramatically. The internet is a tool for those that can already think critically. Full stop. I once got a paper that had the following in a footnote: google searchwords-"the 60s.” I had a student come up to me in the university libary and ask if they had books. She then asked me the location of a specific title. Maybe a little more time in the library would benefit them.
This being said, I think it can be taken for granted that our state institutions tend to be bacculaureate mills. And the students think they should be able to order knowledge “their way,” like you might order a Big Mac. But more than likely we will not escape the service provider model. But I still believe that we can turn them into critical thinkers. In fact I think there is alot at stake in doing just this and wikipedia is not going to help. It’s for knowledge hobbyists. But what do I know? I’m an idiot TA slinging knowledge to the undergraduates. Clearly, the system has problems and that students think they can use wikipedia as a source is merely a symptom.
James, ABD at Stony Brook, at 6:05 pm EST on January 27, 2007
I want to thank the author of the Wikipedia article, the Middlebury history department, and all the readers who posted comments, especially the funny ones, for providing my senior seminar students and me with a very teachable moment.
Walt Nott, at 12:00 am EST on January 28, 2007
As fascinated as I am with wiki culture, I’m shocked at the laissez-faire attitude of some here towards cited sources. It is a moot point whether some expert source or another is redundant, slightly inaccurate or anachronistic; such will be all of our fates someday. But some readily-identifiable person has taken responsibility for the information published.
Although the nature of my own assignments does not typically lead—thank heavens—to the citation of tertiary or internet sources, I require that any reference include all the elements of a proper citation, author first and foremost among them!
drabauer, UC professor, at 5:25 am EST on January 28, 2007
Breathtaking
“I agree that Wikipedia is not always the most accurate resource, but it is the most accessible. Where is it written that learning has to be difficult and hard work?”
Wow. I mean, WOW. If people entrusted with instructional duties actually think like this, the entire education system is doomed. Students are worth more than such breathtaking dismissal.
JBM, at 9:25 am EST on January 28, 2007
JBM
JBM, Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited in court filings (except, perhaps as evidence that something appears in Wikipedia). However, there are three instances (two appellate briefs, and one opinion by a judge) in which it was cited, in the past few months. A search of Westlaw reveals about 20 mentions of it. Limiting my search to just CTA (that, is excluding briefs) I found the following starling examples in 2006 and after:
Doing a quick search of the CTA library, I found the following references, by judges to Wikipedia that are not derogatory references.
Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 459 F.3d 128, n. 3 (2006) (Berne convention); Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, n. 1 (2006) (long dissenting footnote citing Wikipedia for some crime statistics); U.S. v. Yazzen, 187 Fed.Appx. 800 (10th Cir. 2006) (Description of the idiom “Elephant in the room); N’Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 496 (2006) (coups in Mauritania); Patel v. Gonzales, 173 Fed.Appx. 471 (2006) (earthquakes in India).
However, since most of what lawyers do isn’t specifically taught at law school I don’t fault law schools for these practices.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your points.
Larry, at 11:35 am EST on January 28, 2007
Bibliography vs. Works Cited
I was taught that all of our resources be written in our bibliography, but in our works cited we list the works we paraphrase or quote. I don’t think that it is right to ban Wikipedia as a bibliography source, however, I do think it is not necessarily a resource that should be directly cited in a paper.
Mary, Student at CTU, at 3:25 pm EST on January 28, 2007
A stand for enhancing Wikipedia
The unprofessional behavior of professors who ban resources and deceive the public only indicates what vicious prigs populate some sordid corners of the academy.
Instead, oh ye purveyors of wisdom, why not focus that same mischievousness and authoritarian behavior in improving the public good? Why not contribute to Wikipedia and other collective editing initiatives? Why not engage the students in this endeavor? (as one professor above is so doing, thank goodness someone understands the challenge and opportunity facing us).
Banning behavior only indicates that the faculty are failing on their own terms, namely that students are not learning how to distinguish more from less legitimate sources, and understand the hierarchy of knowledge creation.
Sigh.
Jeff McNeill, Instructor and PhD Student at University of Hawaii at Manoa, at 8:20 pm EST on January 28, 2007
Contra-Wiki
Having written for, at current count, 8 print encyclopedias including the Britannica, I know precisely what editors are looking for and explicitly aiming and editing towards: with the exception of the Britannica a high school audience! Nothing more! With the exception of the Britannica, complex subjects are limited in length based on a naive editorial guesstimate of “popularity” (how many “might want” to read it – an unknowable, changing with tomorrow’s headlines!). Moreover, and again unlike the Britannica in my experience, the usual LIMIT is 1 book (rarely 2) per 500 words. Yes, wikipedia is not quite as limited, but in areas of my expertise it is the worst of the bunch, and don’t tell me I should then write for it. I am not about to craft something accurate and significant, and then leave it open for any yahoo (old meaning of a person, not the web company which pirated that name), to revise according to their ignorance or prejudices (let alone what we might call wikipedia’s “700 Club”). Money is not the issue, nor is having my name on it; intellectual integrity is. I rarely end up making a dollar an hour for my efforts, let alone, say, five cents a word.
Print encyclopedias are OK for grade school reports, except that they train children to rely upon them later. The Britannica is OK for high school with the same limitation. Encyclopedias are NOT appropriate for college except perhaps as a quick-start for researching real sources.
Prolific Encyclopedist, Professor at SUNY SYstem, at 9:45 pm EST on January 28, 2007
I apologize for not having read all the other comments— I may be repeating.
Still, discrediting/disallowing Wikipedia entirely is just silly. If a student cites Wikipedia and the information is erroneous, the student should be required to update the article.
L.B.Greig, at 5:10 am EST on January 29, 2007
Missing the Point
I find it amusing that a history department banned Wikipedia. In high school, one of my history teachers cautioned us that history books are products of their times. As an example, she mentioned an old textbook that included a statement to the effect of “The slaves didn’t mind working for their owners, because they received room and board.” History is written by the victors, and whether the source is a book, a journal article, or an encyclopedia, it inevitably has bias. I’m appalled that the only mention of this comes in Prof. Mills Kelly’s blog. Obviously, Wikipedia is unreliable, but the bigger educational picture is that students must learn to find multiple corroborating sources and learn what makes sources reliable. (I think Middlebury’s policy is quite reasonable in this regard, but some of the above discussion misses the point.)
Wikipedia is an increadibly useful starting point, and it has the ability to be much, much more. Already, most articles contain bibliographies for at least some information. The next step is to require the sources of all facts to be cited. Wikipedia would then provide an initial overview of a topic, and would be a condensed source for further (primary) references where all purported facts could be checked by the individual. Such a powerful resource would complement traditional search methods for scholarly articles, which can be difficult to use. Further, Wikipedia has the added benefits of quick and easy access, as well as millions of independent contributing sources of knowledge. Wikipedia will never be perfectly reliable, but it has the ability to surpass all other encyclopedias in breadth, depth and accuracy.
Ben, Undergraduate Student, at 5:10 am EST on January 29, 2007
Let’s make an intelligence test
(I apologize...but English is not my native language)...I just wonder what would happen if those students using Wikipedia just put another invented classical source of information...for example, instead of mentioning Wikipedia...try to mention a fictionary source, let’s say... “The Book of World Facts — 2007 of Clayford University Press"...i bet that the 99% of the teachers would not say anything about it just because it is a “recognized classical source” (even if the information was from Wikipedia)
dvd, Intelligence test, at 5:10 am EST on January 29, 2007
Wikipedia
Wikipedia gives opportunity to anybody who disagrees with the accuracy of particular subject to point on errors and give own “accurate” version. Instead of banning Wikipedia as a source I believe it will be more productive to contribute for improvement to the source. If students will see on the same page different points of view on a subject it will stimulate them to use own brain and dig deeper in to other sources before submitting their assignments. Unfortunately some individuals are trying to keep monopoly on sources of information and hostile to any publicly available resources. My field is physics not history and most information on that subject is accurate in Wikipedia.
A., at 1:21 pm EST on January 29, 2007
Wiki-who?
As a secondary science teacher, I’d like to throw in my two cents. Wiki is not a good source of primary information and should not be used as such. Our students who use it as a resource are not wholly to blame. They should be taught to use Wikipedia in much the same manner as Google to get ideas on where to locate the information you need and possibly get a baseline background on the subject matter, but no more than that.
Our students are under a great deal of pressure with busy class schedules, heavy workloads, jobs, and often even families to care for while in school. Its no wonder they look for shortcuts and at first glance without careful consideration of how wiki’s work, it would seem to be an absolute goldmine of information.
Take the time to teach them about research; more importantly: teach them how to think for themselves. (Especially the young ones!) Don’t bash the wiki’s, use them for what they are worth.
T. Price, Teacher at CISD, at 8:55 am EST on January 30, 2007
Colleges can bar students from siting Wikipedia as a source on assignments. That’s the professors, and the schools choice. Wikipedia is full of information, but it doesnt mean that it’s all realible information. If students choose to use wikipedia on their free time that’s their choice, but when it comes down to school assignments then they shouldnt use it.This way they know that whatever information they get from another site such as google.com or ask.com is more realible then that of wikipedia, which would lead the students to have a better grade.
Terri Swannee, Doctor at Professor at UVA, at 4:35 pm EST on January 30, 2007
wikipedia
This is an issue that I deal with when I discuss sources with my students. Although I understand and support the idea of “banning” the use of Wikipedia in student papers, I really cannot condone the banning of any source. The better position is to help students understand what kind of sources they need to use.
Pamela Smith-Irowa, Ph.D., Instructor at St. Xavier University, at 6:20 pm EST on January 30, 2007
What Wiki Really Represents
Being a graduate student at CUNY I am very familiar with this debate since I am required to produce quality research papers in my studies. That being said, I use Wikipedia everyday of my life, because of the wealth of knowledge it represents. I do not, however, cite it in any of my papers because research papers require primary sources and scholarly secondary sources.
What Wikipedia has done for the academic community is nothing short of revolutionary because it is completely free, ever evolving (usually for the better), and a dramatically convenient source for bringing together ideas. I use Wikipedia as almost a virtual desktop upon which I create my papers. By this I mean that while analyzing the British tactics in the War of 1812, I can have up 20 articles that show me the full color maps, the biography of James Monroe, the timeline, the ships names, the battlefields, etc. If this sounds like a traditional encyclopedia it is, but with one important distinction: the speed with which one can pull together any tangential information by way of clicking a link. It is true that one should not cite these resources because they are not primary documents; however, Wikipedia enables one to hold a wider breadth of information at the fingertips. This in turn enables more insightful writing and hopefully better overall papers. Wikipedia represents some vision of the future, and I, for one, think it is grand indeed.
Patrick Richards, Patrick Richards at CUNY, at 10:06 pm EST on January 30, 2007
To those of you who are outraged at the “ban” at Middlebury, PLEASE go back and read the article! Prof Wyatt specifically said a “ban” wasn’t appropriate! So chill, lose the inflammatory language, and try and understand the spirit of what Middlebury College is trying to do, which is, as a department, send a message to students as to the expectations for academic research at the collegiate level. Middlebury College has consistently been in the top ten liberal arts colleges for decades- the students are not idiots.
The nature of the information world has changed dramatically since Prof Wyatt and his colleagues were students. Students at all levels are thinking WAY differently about their learning than their teachers ever did. Today’s students have more access to more information than ever before, and the cultural shift in the way academic work is carried out is bound to create some conflict and tension.
It sounds like Middlebury College is trying to bridge that by making expectations for original academic work more clear, and through this, educate students on some of the pitfalls that are an intrinsic part of the “New Info Society.”
Hollis, at 9:55 am EST on January 31, 2007
As an internet-user, I love Wikipedia. It’s fast, informative, and constantly changing.
As a college comp instructor, I believe that the question of the accuracy of Wikipedia is the wrong one to take up.
At this stage of education (college or university), students should be learning that the “experts” tend to disagree (in the humanities & sciences—they do across the board) and that “truth” (or the right or wrong answer) isn’t the hard-and-fast thing they tend to believe it is.
Instead, I would question a college-level project that allowed information from any encyclopedia (print or otherwise) as an acceptable source. As I tell my students, an encyclopedia (especially one of the topical ones instead of World Book) is a good general place to start research. At the college level, though, it is time to start using peer-reviewed journals and books as sources for their projects. Any encyclopedia entry would be by definition too short to be specific or rigorous enough at this level.
Teaching information literacy (in all its difficulty and detail) in all disciplines is a better answer than banning sources. As our future teachers are students right now, simply ignoring the question of information literacy will hurt us more in the long run.
Kristi, at 10:57 am EST on January 31, 2007
I do not condone banning any source, but my students are briefed on Wikipedia and how to use it as a “stepping stone” toward other sources. All students should be “reminded” on how to pick sources, especially in this digital age.
Greg Null, Instructor at Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics, at 11:25 am EST on January 31, 2007
Wiki
I teach high school English and banned Wikipedia 2 years ago—mainly because the students would rely solely on it and not branch out in their research. I’m glad to know I’m not alone in my objection to Wikipedia!
Kenda Rusevlyan, at 12:20 pm EST on January 31, 2007
Banning research tools such as Wikipedia for students may prove to be counterproductive. In the world students will encounter outside academia there won’t be a well meaning, omnipresent professor thinking for them. A college or University will best serve the needs of their students by helping them develop critical thinking skills and discernment. It is these qualities that will allow them to succeed in their academic career and in their future professions. It is wiser perhaps to educate students about the wealth of bad or incomplete information available, teach them to recognize reliable, valid and verifiable sources and then hold them accountable for the end result of their research. It may be easier to categorically ban dubious sources, but what is really being accomplished by doing so? While students may initially produce higher scoring essays, will they be cultivating the quality thinking skills that will carry them through the rest of their lives? Banning research tools such as Wikipedia for students may prove to be counterproductive. In the world students will encounter outside academia there won’t be a well meaning, omnipresent professor thinking for them. A college or University will best serve the needs of their students by helping them develop critical thinking skills and discernment. It is these qualities that will allow them to succeed in their academic career and in their future professions. It is wiser perhaps to educate students about the wealth of bad or incomplete information available, teach them to recognize reliable, valid and verifiable sources and then hold them accountable for the end result of their research. It may be easier to categorically ban dubious sources, but what is really being accomplished by doing so? While students may initially produce higher scoring essays, will they be cultivating the quality thinking skills that will carry them through the rest of their lives?
JeanM, at 2:35 pm EST on January 31, 2007
Tomorrow is already yesterday...
Kudos to those who can find interaction and learning space in cyberpace!
It’s ironic that Historians usually believe understanding past probs helps us avoid the same ones in the future. I doubt rigidity about research sources teaches our students well, and I know that good research rarely, if ever, depends on one source. As for being guardians against misinformation...there’s just as much faulty information on paper, and like any good researcher knows, you just have to look for it.
Will Hochman, Associate Professor of English at SCSU, at 10:05 pm EST on January 31, 2007
The professorial response to Wikipedia is astonishingly unimaginative (Canute-like?). We discourage direct use of Wikipedia in most cases but on our Film Theory course we set an assignment which required our students to critique the Wikipedia entries on Genre and Auteur. Then they were required to produce a better version based upon their otherreading. For first-year undergraduates this seemed a far more productive way of encouraging a critical understanding of ideas in the public sphere. Some of the work was very good.
Dave Allen, Head of School of Creative Arts, Film and Media at University of Portsmouth, UK, at 6:11 am EST on February 1, 2007
Caveat Emptor
Great care must be exercised whenever consulting Wikipedia. For example, a Wikipedia article entitled “Transient Lunar Phenomenon” gives the appearance of a comprehensive report, but failed to cite one of the most widely publicized reports of lunar luminescence. A rare, wide area irradiance of the Moon, that was photographed by astonomers Z. Kopal and T. Rackham, was publicized in Scientific American (vol. 212, no. 5, p. 28), Sky & Telescope (vol.27, no. 3, p. 140), and Icarus (vol. 2, p. 481). Several journals cited those reports, but the Wikipedia authors of “Transient Lunar Phenomenon” made no mention of it. Wikipedia is not as comprehensive as it may appear. Unfortunately, such deficiencies are consistent with the practice of promulgating articles written under an alias.
Taylor Cisco, Jr., Program Compliance Officer at City Colleges of Chicago, at 10:30 am EST on February 1, 2007
Academic Arrogance
Some of the replies in here smack of the self-perceived intellectual superiority of many college professors. Wikipedia is contributed to by the masses, therefore it cannot be good. Get over your pre-conceived bias and do some research. Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than Brittanica. It is not a resource for deep, deep examination of a topic, but it is completely suitable for a general overview. Is it perfect? Of course not, but neither is any journal, magazine, newspaper, etc.
I would never ban an encyclopedia as a research source—that is WHAT THEY ARE FOR. However, I would not allow an encyclopedia in any form to be the ONLY source. The depth just isn’t sufficient.
The beauty of Wikipedia (and what necessitates it’s constant monitoring, to be sure) is that it was created in the belief that millions of minds are better than one. Too bad some of you don’t get that.
Randy, at 3:55 pm EST on February 1, 2007
Wikipedia and Other General References
In 21 years of teaching freshman English and technical communication at a two-year technical college, I probably read at least 2000 research papers and technical reports. It did not take me long after my first few dozen or so readings to decide that I had to set a policy on documentation. From then on, I announced early each semester that each paper (of approximately 10 pages double spaced typed) would contain, at minimum, five specific resources, that is, books or periodicals pertaining to the topic of the paper. No encyclopedia or dictionary citations would count toward the minimum of five. Of course, students were urged to provide more than five and many did. My intent was to get students to write a focused and readable product based on a reasonably good distribution of resources, the more the better. Encyclopedia or dictionary citations were permitted as part of an introductory section of the paper or, if needed to define a new term later in the paper, but they were not considered primary sources of research. I have read several comments here attesting to the use of encyclopedias only as starting points for research. I couldn’t agree more.
Joseph F. Whelan, at 4:10 pm EST on February 1, 2007
Thanks
Thanks for intelligently and reasonably pointing out the limitations of Wikipedia as a credible source of research. If college students are misusing Wikipedia with some frequency, the problem in high schools, even in the best of them, is at least as bad. Perhaps now that high schools are making their point about Wikipedia’s limitations, colleges will see the results over the next couple of years.
s. vasey, 12th Grade English Teacher at Community School of Naples, at 8:46 am EST on February 2, 2007
Embrace vs. Control
Wikipedia is a good example of the so-called Web 2.0 technologies that everyone in the tech world is talking about: Social Networking, Collaborative Spaces, Open Access, etc.
Just as web-based and online education did in the past decade, Web 2.0 has left academia in the dust, while most of us have our heads buried deep in the sand so we don’t have to recognize, acknowledge, and embrace that our world is changing around us, rapidly.
From the comments here, some have not only pulled their heads out, but have turned to face to demon face-to-face, embracing it and using it as an advantage, as a teaching tool, rather than trying desperately to control what can’t be controlled and hold on to the past.
Those who will embrace the change are those that will not only survive in this world, but thrive.
ECB
ECB, Dr. at MCON, at 11:35 am EST on February 2, 2007
Instead of criticizing the weaknesses of wikis in education why don’t we focus on the positive aspects wikis can offer our students. Teachers can and should take advantage of the nature of wikis. Why can’t teachers engage their students in critically analyzing the accuracy of the information presented? What better way of teaching students to think critically than to have them evaluate the information preseneted for accuracy. Additionally, wikis can be used to present other viewpoints of interpretations of events and facts. The collaborative and interactive nature of the information found in wikis allows its advantages in education to go far beyond its use in term papers.
Dale, Teacher, at 2:55 pm EST on February 2, 2007
Wikipedia as Teaching Tool
By asking students to turn to Wikipedia as a learning tool, we do a far better job of teaching them critical thinking skills than we do by simply banning it as a reference.
I have expanded on this idea in my own blog. See http://www.stevenlberg.info/blog/02-04-2007.html.
Steven L. Berg, Assistant Professor of English and History at Schoolcraft College, at 4:35 pm EST on February 4, 2007
Response to Elwood and Prolific Encyclopedist
Elwood, I suppose you realise that vandalising Wikipedia is on the same level as vandalising train stations? After all, it’s important to register your disgust of the terrible state of the nation’s transport system by getting out a spray-can and showing everyone just How Bad It Can Get. I wish you well in your endeavours, however, as Wikipedia has a better track record than most when it comes to reverting such stupidity.
To Prolific Encyclopedist: you wrote, “the usual LIMIT is 1 book (rarely 2) per 500 words. Yes, wikipedia is not quite as limited, but in areas of my expertise it is the worst of the bunch, and don’t tell me I should then write for it.” I’m sort of interested what articles you were reading... many of the better articles have more citations to more than 3 references, and on top of that Wikipedia has a very useful CITATION system! I don’t remember seeing footnotes in Encyclopedia Britannica...
However, you are spot on when you say: “Print encyclopedias are OK for grade school reports, except that they train children to rely upon them later. The Britannica is OK for high school with the same limitation. Encyclopedias are NOT appropriate for college except perhaps as a quick-start for researching real sources.” Noone is arguing this, and in fact most Wikipedia administrators and editors would agree with you. Wikipedia should NOT be a primary or even secondary source, but a “first port of call". All information should be chased down to one or more sources. As a general overview of a topic, it really can’t be beat!
Ta bu shi da yu, at 5:45 am EST on February 5, 2007
I fully agree with Middlebury’s position on citing wikipedia. However, I fear that many are skewing my alma mater’s position to selectively focus on defaming online resources in particular, when the college’s position should be used to discourage the citation of encyclopedias in general. Middlebury, like most other higher ed. institutions, wishes for all students to cite original sources when possible. This “original source” stance gets convoluted in practice because it is born out of a desire to make students think for themselves in creative and original ways. In some cases, an examination of encyclopedia entries can be incredibly telling about cultural attitudes or bias towards an event. Sometimes, the most valid and meaningful resources are found scribbled on the sides of truck stop bathrooms (as in the case of my roommate’s senior thesis!). As long as students are taught to think critically about the resources that they use, no potential source of inspiration (from late night TV ads to Kierkegaard) should be off limits. Conversely, if you teach students that education can only be found in some places but not others, you are shutting their minds to a world of potential exploration and compartmentalizing education into something that seems more like a chore than a privilege. It is important that you give students the guidelines to understand when certain citations are appropriate and when they are not; I do not think that it is productive to disqualify an information source all together.
Skye, at 12:05 pm EST on February 5, 2007
Banned!
My students are forbidden from using Wikipedia for their papers for my classes. I teach five high school history courses each year. Each student is required to submit a term paper each quarter; lengths vary from five to 16 pages, depending on the level.
Regarding sources, students’ papers are required to have a minimum of five to seven quality sources for each paper, depending on the term and the level. A minimum of four of those sources must be published books. Only one encyclopedia may count toward the minimums.
They are allowed to use Internet sources, but not in place of the published sources. Wikipedia and some other low quality sources are not allowed. They are provided a list of suggested websites that they can use, but they are not limited to what is on that list.
The reasons why I do not allow Wikipedia include, in my opinion, its use of poor conventions, inaccuracies, and even plagiarism. For example, I had a few months ago “googled” a few passages from Wikipedia articles and had found those passages from other websites and articles; no sources were credited.
We are trying to encourage good grammar, good spelling, good punctuation and other good habits of convention. Why should we accept a source with bad habits and pretend that it’s a quality source? We would not want just anyone to be able to open and change passages of a qualified surgeon’s textbook. Why would we accept it for messing around with historical facts? We are trying to enforce good practices regarding crediting sources, so why should we allow a website to be used that really has not demonstrated those practices as thoroughly?
Dana Smith, History Teacher at Mashpee High School, at 4:05 pm EST on February 5, 2007
wiki and a Librarian
I can remember way back in Library School Land ala 1971/72 Information Resources course Profs discussing the problem of faculty members in other departments having fits over “encyclopedias.”
The “pedias” are good beginnings — yes — and if something is gained it should be cited!
I once worked in Telephone Reference at a major US Public Library — over 75% of the phone calls could be answered through an encyclopedia such as Merit, etc.
I have also sat through English Literature classes (master & doctoral level) where profs had fits about the yellow or red plagues (Monarch & Cliff Notes as they were known back then.) The notes helped the students understand what was going on.
Isn’t this Wiki tempest really the same thing but in a different cut of cloth.
In one part of a Library course I tracked down the cited authors of the various encyclopedia type articles covering English Lit writers/movements/etc. Often the “pedias” authors were up and coming critics/experts within that particular field.
Don’t ban a source — use it to encourage and to grow.
I believe it was Chairman Mao who once opined “who cares about what color the cat is — as long as it catches mice.”
Ray skip Roedell, at 8:20 pm EST on February 5, 2007
Teaching Information Literacy
In dealing with students from more than five surrounding universities, as well as high school students, on a daily basis in the library where I work, I know that it can be very time-consuming to effectively teach information-literacy skills. As a relatively recent graduate of a Library and Information Sciences program with more than ten years prior experience in academia, I also know that academic librarians are more than up to the challenge. Engage your students in a thoughtful discussion about Wikipedia and other online sources, and accept the offers you’ve probably received from the library on campus to teach an information literacy session for your students. If you prefer, work with librarians to have your students tour the library and learn what is available. Most scholarly journals, and many encyclopedias, are available electronically via the university library and are nearly as easy to access as Wikipedia, even if they don’t appear in a Google search.
Social networking software, wikis, blogs (I have both a blog and a wiki of my own) and other online entertainment/information sources are fascinating but not necessarily scholarly or factually informative. Use the librarians in your institution to help you teach students effective and realistic research skills.
Candice, Reference Librarian, at 11:51 am EST on February 6, 2007
Wikipedia.. is it really a problem??
Students have been going online to research for school projects and papers for years. Most of the kids have been asked by their earlier teachers to have more then one rescource to find your information. Why do you think our teachers use to tell that to us all of the time? There are two main reasons: 1. So you can learn more about your subject. 2. You want to make sure the information given is RIGHT.So is banning wikipedia and failing those who use it, really the answer? Or should you just grade the kids on whether or not they have the right information? I think having the right information is what really matters. Its the students fault if they only rely on one source to get the right answer.
Michael Holt, at 2:55 pm EST on February 7, 2007
Non Issue
I really think that this is a non-issue. Middlebury College is not trying to ban students from using Wikipedia is trying to ban the use of Wikipedia as a cited and factual reference. Any student that knows what they are doing wouldn’t cite Wikipedia or an Encyclopedia anyway. Basically Wikipedia should be a jumping off point not a person’s only study aide. Also, on the other hand usually any bibliography is a collection of opinionated thought expressed and published by various authors. We cite references to acknowledge the authors original work. Wikipedia is yet another “work” that has an author. All in all this should not be totally banned it should be left up to each professor to make his/her own opinion on how to address the issue.
Jasmine Cone, Student at Schoolcraft College, at 4:41 pm EST on February 7, 2007
i think that the students should use wikipedia as a idae getter. it should not be the only reference. i think that banning it all togather is not right.
brian Bishop, schoolcraft, at 7:05 pm EST on February 7, 2007
In light of Middlebury’s decision to ban its Students use of Wikipedia as a reference, I have one thing to say to the Students at Middlebury: Find another route. While Wikipedia is certainly one of the most popular resources for Student research, the information posted there is mainly a collaboration of multiple authors and their collective knowledge of a particular subject. Usually, Wikipedia won’t let just anyone publish material on their website, so Students have a fair reason to beleive that the information posted has also been researched at some level or another. If a Student wanted to use information posted by Wikipedia, all the Student would have to do is find other credible sites conveying the same information. True and credible information is out there somewhere, Student’s at Middlebury will just have to use more of the hundreds of other resources available to them to substantiate thier research.
Josh Latzman, “The Road Less Traveled By” at Schoolcraft College, at 5:45 am EST on February 8, 2007
Analogy
Banning wikipedia is like banning Michael Moore books. OK, so Michael Moore’s books are offensive to some, innacurate, and highly opinionated. However, it’s somewhere to start. “Wow, Michael Moore says the government planned 9-11. Maybe I should research that and find out if it’s true.” In my opinion, teachers should love wikipedia. It provides an opportunity for students to discover for themselves what a credible or non-credible source is. To take away that opportunity for discovery is like giving a 1st grade student all the answers to their addition and subtraction homework and not letting them learn on their own.
Pat Cline, student at Schoolcraft College, at 9:24 am EST on February 8, 2007
It was Deng Xiaoping who made the remark about cats. I’d like to support that with a reference to wikipedia but I can’t. Perhaps tomorrow.
Steve Watson, at 11:25 pm EST on February 10, 2007
Context is key
Of course wikip should not be cited for scholarly research, but it may have it’s place. 1) a place to start searching for students not savy enough (yet) for good Worldcat searches (most students don’t take a bib class until the masters or doctoral level) 2) demonstration of collective knowledge sharing and editing (for better and worse) 3) pedagogical discussions regarding research reliability and methodology 4) alternate explanations (if a student can find an explanation there that helps his/her acquisition of course content, so be it) 5) it’s SOoo Web 2.0!6) students should question ALL sources, not just wikip!
Kimberly James, Assistant Professor, at 4:25 am EST on February 12, 2007
I have just recently found out about wikipedia and believe it is an excelent starting point for research.
houston taylor, student at schoolcraft, at 9:55 am EST on February 12, 2007
still good for some things
I agree with a number of the other comments saying that wikipedia is good for finding small amounts of information for personal knowledge, but to use it as a resource for a research paper just really isn’t smart. It could be a good starting point, but research should run deeper than wikipedia.
Caleb Leger, schoolcraft college, at 8:05 pm EST on February 12, 2007
I disagree completely that Wikipedia is a good starting point. Anyone who begins research for a college-level paper with a visit to a non-academic source is already doomed. Students should know where to begin their research for an academic paper, they shouldn’t be going to Wiki. for help. They go there because they are lazy. I see it all the time—I tell my students not to use encyclopedias as sources but they may use them if they come across a name in their research with which they are unfamiliar and want to educate themselves. But I send them to academic sources to do their research. The internet can be useful but it’s also a very dangerous venue for anyone who is concerned with real academic work. If an instructor doesn’t care about what the students learn, then it doesn’t matter but if you’re an instructor who wants to produce truly academic students, you must guide them to what’s Ok and what’s not. Encyclopedia research is for junior high, not college.
English prof, at 2:25 pm EST on February 13, 2007
In response to the above comment, I don’t undertand why it would make a student lazy. The student was right when he/she said it was a good starting point. Take a topic, such as the Aztec civilization, for example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec) The site gives plenty of general knowledge that the student can see in 10-15 minutes instead of trying to read through a 300 page book trying to find more specialized information. If a student came into a research paper interested in the Aztecs but knew nothing about the civilization, the site offers plenty of GENERAL knowledge. As I have said, instead of reading a giant book about Aztecs to gather ideas, the student could instead look for a book on human sacrifice. If taking 10 minutes evaluating Wikipedia to find specific ideas about the culture makes a student lazy, then so be it.
Michael Burke, Schoolcraft College, at 7:10 pm EST on February 14, 2007
Academic Arrogance Personified
Things like this definitely smack of academic arrogance. Or simply a matter of the teacher/professor trying to force students to “pay the same dues that they did” by using the same tools that they had. “We didn’t have this ‘online tool’ so we aren’t going to let them use it either!”
The simple problem of this stand has already been printed in the comments, but to summarize my general thought on the matter, we have to try to take a look at what really is happening:
I find in most of my objective critical learning as a bachelors holder and general lover of learning is that there are very few stone-cold iron-clad facts out there, but only opinions. The question is whether some of the opinions can be substantiated with those very few stone-cold iron-clad facts that are out there. This goes for matters of history and literature, but also science.
Let us remember that most all things of an academic or “other” nature is written opinion. Basically put, someone formulates a contention, and tries to find written works of different varieties that agrees with their contention. Is the original contention of the writer fully correct or not? Only in the eye of the beholder. An old saying I’ve heard multiple times: “If no one agrees with what I think it’s an opinion. If another person agrees with me it’s a theory. If two or more agree with me it’s fact.” I’ll even admit that a majority (99%) of the papers I’ve written in my entire life were opinion papers with “outside sources” quoted in them which agreed with my opinion. There’s really no such thing as “credible fact", but “credible opinions".
To bring this to a wider example, I could write a paper on evolution that would completely destroy the entire idea of it. In fact, it’s a contentious issue, but I could find numerous “generally accepted” sources (read books written by scientists) to cite that would agree with the contention that evolution is incorrect. As well, I could write a paper under the same conditions with the contention of evolution as fact.
Of course, we have to start looking at the prejudice of the instructor that would look at these papers. If I were to write the former paper, it would likely be dismissed as “out-of-hand” with “inaccurate factual data” and “unacademic sources", even if I had numerous outside sources that were not online written by well trained scientists! But if I wrote the latter paper it would be received well. Much is how information is perceived! The issue is not whether it is factual or not, but if it is believable or not by the person reading it! If the instructor reading the paper was a believer in evolution, the anti-evolution paper would be received poorly, and the instructor would not see the sources as “credible".
Let us go on to discuss the fallacy of this idea of “editing” and online sources not being “credible". Now if I were to write a paper using online sources, most of the people here would dismiss it, especially if I *gasp* dared used Wikipedia! Yet, they’d be fully willing to accept written materials with the same material in them, whether they are “generally credible” opinion or not. Why is that? I think it’s a prejudice these instructors have of the format. Yes, online materials can be easily changed, and can easily have “inaccurate data". So what? Books can and do have “inaccurate data” in them. Both can have very accurate data, as well. Like was said, Wikipedia in some cases has more “accurate information” than some of the encyclopedias. So why the prejudice? Perhaps because those that wrote online, most times, didn’t “pay their dues” in getting published like they did?
Let me go on to relate to you how books generally seem to be, in my small little experience of “getting published". If a library is relatively good, you should be able to find a book in which I have written about 20% of its content (not naming it because I would rather remain anonymous). In the process of getting “edited” (by one person), the only concerns that were brought out were matters of grammar and formatting. The fact is, most books you find are going to be created with the same conditions. Ultimately very few eyes will be laid upon a book’s contents before it is published.
Let’s compare that with Wikipedia, where many eyes have been frequently laid upon any one page by the time you’ve gotten to look at it. And sometimes, many have commented on the material for the world to read! In fact, for what I’ve read on Wikipedia, you can usually read the objections that have been voiced and use that in the process of making up your own mind. Yes, more scrutiny is usually applied to most Wikipedia material (nine times out of ten anyway), than most books! Yet you see books as “more credible sources"? Having a publishing company put words on a written page doesn’t make anything more or less credible than if it exists online.
Essentially, students need to be able to form their own opinions and be able to articulate them in an organized and clear manner. Most of the time, these arguments of “credibility of sources” are only to mask this academic arrogance that most in the educational community have. Why not stop the ivory-tower arrogance and start teaching students the proper way to do things when it comes to writing?
Ultimately if an instructor is wise to teach those students that come before them properly, they need to remove their prejudice and arrogance regarding places that information comes from and teach their students to think independently, critically, and to be able to form proper arguments. And to NOT teach them how to regurgitate things that others have written. I’ll admit too that most of the papers I’ve written have been make-work in that regard too. And most students (especially younger ones) are going to recognize that and will take the shortest path to get you off their backs.
I commend the few in here that have recognized the value of critical thinking. It’s much more profitable in the long run to teach the students by embracing online web pages and Wikipedia (assignment idea: maybe critique pages, let the students formulate opinion on whether they agree or disagree, let them discover the fullness of whatever it is they are looking at, maybe even suggest edits on that page?), than it is to ban the use of it. Teach them how to be proper consumers of knowledge to make their own informed opinions. Not how to regurgitate information onto a page.
Glenn, at 4:20 am EST on February 15, 2007
Hold Up!
As a student at the particular college in question and having taken classes in the department in question, I’d like to clarify a few things:
1) The professors here are not, despite some of the above comments, out to get us, out to make us do more work than necessary, attempting to wreck havoc, or flexing their power muscles. Middlebury is a wonderful school, and the professors are, if anything at all, better and more involved in the educational process than their peers at similar institutions.
The rule against Wikipedia is, as some have pointed out, common sense to most of us. It is, as the professors here tell us (and the article mentions too) a good STARTING POINT for research. I’m the student head of the Peer Writing department, we say the same thing as the history department to every student who raises the question, history major or otherwise. Wikipedia is a great place to find search keywords to use in journal searches, a great place to “learn the lingo” of a subject in order to search intelligently for information on that subject. But it is not a “scholarly source,” even by definition. Most paper assignments require some number of citations from scholarly sources, where a scholarly source is a published, peer reviewed work, prepared by experts, or at least actors, in the field in question. This quite obviously excludes Wikipedia.
2) This new rule isn’t designed to hurt us. Instead, it gives the professors a rule to point to in the rare case that a student does try to bend the rules or shortcut a paper at the last minute by citing Wikipedia. And as for the “students just won’t cite” comment, nobody at Midd is ignorant enough to believe that he or she can find something on Wikipedia that the professor can’t, or that our professors don’t know the subject well enough to spot misinformation if included.
3) The History department rule does not BAN students from using Wikipedia, explicitly. It simply states that one’s final source of a piece of information included in an academic research paper must come from a reputable, scholarly source. This means, simply, that if you find something interesting on Wiki, you find a scholarly source (usually just using the bibliography attached to the article itself) and get that source. Middkids are pretty smart bunch, most of us, anyway, can find something online in a few minutes. And there’s no rule against using the internet to do research, even though our professors didn’t have access to that.
Like our history professors are saying — get your facts straight about what you’re talking about before you post.
“You can keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, or you can open it and remove all doubt”
Luke, Student at Middlebury College, at 9:51 pm EST on February 23, 2007
I am a senior Neuroscience major at Middlebury. Every paper I submit has a reference check as part of the assessment process. Were I to use a source that was considered unreliable (i.e. Wikipedia) I would receive a lower grade. A part of my own intellectual growth is to seek the primary source and not an interpretation of data. I must make the interpretation for myself.
Scott Buckley, Student at Middlebury at Middlebury College, at 11:16 pm EST on February 23, 2007
Read the **** article.
Middlebury has not banned all use of Wikipedia, it has banned citations.
The ban is a blunt instrument, but when you’ve got many of your students coming in fresh out of a public high school, it’s a quick way to let them know of one particular, widely-used, unacceptable source for citations. Yes, students should learn more about how to judge unacceptable sources, as I did at Middlebury. But banning citations of Wikipedia doesn’t mean that students won’t learn about stuff like that. In some of my later science classes, books (as opposed to peer-reviewed journal articles) were seen as questionable sources for many of our papers, to be used sparingly if at all.
Yes, all knowledge is unreliable to some extent. But surely most rational people would recognize that there’s a difference in reliability between a peer-reviewed article in a respected journal and a Wikipedia article.
I’m not sure I agree about the necessity of a specific ban, but I do agree that citing Wikipedia should result in a lower grade. Citing an encyclopedia should also result in a lower grade, and of course Wikipedia has the additional problem of unreliability. That said, for quickly looking something up or as a starting point, Wikipedia is very valuable and I use it all the time for purposes like that.
As for the practice of deliberately putting false information on Wikipedia—do you also lie to your students to show that asking an individual about something is an unreliable source of information? It’s important for people to know that as well, but it doesn’t mean that lying is acceptable. Deliberately vandalizing the Wikipedia site by putting up false information is the same thing as lying, and just as morally wrong.
Also, to the person who said you could cite “accepted sources” disproving evolution: No, you can’t. Unless, by accepted, you mean, “accepted a century ago” or “accepted by the Intelligent Design camp". You can’t cite sources that are accepted by most scientists that “disprove” evolution because they don’t exist. I’m not sure why there are so many people with negative opinions of academia on *this* site. **** trolls.
L. Isham, Alumna at Middlebury College, at 4:41 pm EST on February 25, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to A Stand Against Wikipedia
or search for jobs directly.
Part-Time Faculty — American English Language Program
Montgomery College
Montgomery College, Maryland’s oldest community college, has earned a reputation as one of the best community colleges in ... see job
Career Services Representative
Corinthian Colleges
WyoTech is a dynamic part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Our various campuses provide state-of-the-art training ... see job
Senior Development Officer — MDC Foundation (615800)
Miami Dade College
Miami Dade College Foundation is creating a brand new advancement team and is looking for energetic fundraising professionals ... see job
Health Sciences Clinical Instructor
University of California—Irvine
Department of Anesthesiology Position: Health Sciences Clinical Instructor CALIFORNIA: University of California, Irvine, ... see job
Part-Time Faculty — Business Administration
Montgomery College
Montgomery College, with campuses located in Germantown, Rockville, Takoma Park/Silver Spring, and centers at Gaithersburg ... see job
Student Activities Advisor
Hillsborough Community College
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
Associate Professor/Professor of Education
College of William and Mary
The College of William and Mary, chartered in 1693, is the nation’s second oldest academic institution. It is a highly ... see job
Project Director of Info Systems
University of Rochester
Project Director needed to assist in the relocation and development of our primary data center. see job
Department Chair — Business Administration
Confidential
We are a leading educational institution serving the unique training and career advancement needs of adult students. Our ... see job
Political Science Temporary Faculty Pool
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
The Department of Political Science at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania is creating a pool of temporary, part-time ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2007 Inside Higher Ed
Three Cheers for Middlebury!
Wikipedia has its uses but as a source in a term paper is not one of them.
You’re listening to R.E.M.’s “Man on the Moon” and you wonder, “Who in the heck is Mott the Hoople?” Well, Wikipedia is the place to take a quick look and find out! But, now you want to write the definitive paper about Mott the Hoople? Wikipedia is no longer the place for you.
Christian Anderson, Penn State, at 5:55 am EST on January 26, 2007