Professors Learning To Embrace, Not Hate, Wikipedia
from the editing-professor's-views dept
There are plenty of Wikipedia haters out there -- but they often seem to miss the point of the site. We've certainly heard of plenty of students who are told that they're not allowed to cite Wikipedia, which seems silly. As long as people recognize what the source is and how it's written, there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as one source among many. It appears that at least a few professors are figuring this out -- and one has taken the typical Wikipedian response to charges of incorrect data (that response being: well, if it's wrong, fix it!) to the next level. Rather than having students just research something using Wikipedia, University of Washington-Bothell professor Martha Groom has them write up a totally new Wikipedia article or substantially improve an old one. In other words, if you think that Wikipedia isn't very good, why not improve it? Not only is it probably a valuable exercise in learning how to present certain types of information, it helps the students have a better understanding of how Wikipedia content comes to be.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Then in the next class, students will learn how their work is often meaningless as they log back on to Wikipedia and find that their information has been deleted by an administrator who knows nothing about that field of knowledge and deems it "not notable".
Ah yes... the Real World 101!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I dunno, Mike. I think you made this whole article up. I wanna see some sources. My students will never cite Techdirt. >_>
Sarcasm aside, I have an English teacher right now who absolutely forbids citing Wikipedia. I can understand the danger of citing it in regards to more historical topics, but I am a computer scientist. Most of what is written can be verified technologically rather than "just taking their word for it", so it is harder to lie about tech topics.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not a good source.
Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source under any circumstances. It is however an appropriate way to find acceptable sources. If a student chooses to wikipedia a subject, and he or she then goes to the bibliography section of that subjects page, then, if there are reliable sources listed there, they may site one of THOSE sources, the original, hopefully peer-reviewed source. There is no legitimate argument that the wikipedia page itself can be used as a source because even if there are legitimate sources cited, they are interpreted by the poster and could misrepresent the factual data.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not a good source.
That was what I was going to say cite the sources that are on Wikipedia its not hard and you get more info
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A futile effort, methinks...
In my experience, most professors won't even let students cite a printed encyclopedia, due to a propensity toward unnecessary bias and a perceived tendency to print untruths. Whether this is right or wrong, I won't say (regarding the printed encyclopedia issue). I will say that I find Wikipedia to be far too subject to detrimental changes by the administrators, and thus should not be used as a professional reference. My main concern regarding your post, however, is that there is little (if any) hope of convincing many more than handful of professors to allow Wikipedia citations; the dislike of Wikipedia simply runs too deep.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wikipedia is NOT a source...
I'm a teaching assistant for the largest School of Criminology in North America and I have been reinforcing to my students over the past two years that Wikipedia is not an academic source that can be referenced in a research paper simply because the information may not always be verifiable. But while I caution them against using it as a source, I tell them that they can go there as a starting point to see if it can direct them to REAL academic sources. It's like the rest of the internet; when used properly it can be a good tool, but they have to learn how to recognize good versus bad information.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A futile effort, methinks...
Encyclopedias are (more or less) acceptable as starting points for basic undergraduate research, but never as a source. Setting concerns over bias aside, they give you the Reader's Digest version of a topic, and citing them is just laziness, pure and simple. By forbidding encyclopedias as sources, the professor is simply ensuring that students do the actual work required of the discipline, which usually involves working with primary sources.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So nothing is citable?
In my experience, most professors won't even let students cite a printed encyclopedia, due to a propensity toward unnecessary bias and a perceived tendency to print untruths.
Since everything ever written has been interpreted by the authors own point of view let's just quit citing things in general. From now on, all published works should be from the author's own mind and they should not research anything (obvious sarcasm here).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: So nothing is citable?
Congratulations on ignoring the phrase "propensity toward," which happens to mean "a natural inclination or tendency toward." Also, it's interesting that you find the word "bias" unworthy of note.
I have no problem with "interpretation of data," but "bias" is a problem since it lends itself to the forcing of one's (usually unfounded) opinions on the reader.
Just because I claim that one source has a tendency to be overly biased doesn't mean I oppose citing sources that interpret information.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not a good source.
your an idiot. how many times have you found good information posted on wikipedia? I think 1 in every 1,000,000 things i read on there, are probably false. You act as if it is the other way around.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: So nothing is citable?
Hmm...obviously the word sarcasm is not in your vocabulary...or you have no sense of humor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I've had to write a wikipedia article for a class on complex forms of interaction. This news article really makes me happy :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"your an idiot. how many times have you found good information posted on wikipedia? I think 1 in every 1,000,000 things i read on there, are probably false. You act as if it is the other way around."
...and how clever do you need to be to recognise the difference between "you're" and "your"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Using Wikipedia in a different way
I think this article was about a professor who had students submit their own original article, thereby learning from the experience.
It's nice to see professors that come up with something original for their students to do that pertains to the real world.
The first time I went to Wikipedia and learned that the content was supplied by others, that was enough for me. I mean why bother? I'm surprised it became as popular as it is today. I guess that's why I'm not a rich Internet guru.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Not a good source.
JB, I don't know if you were doing so on purpose, but if not I'd like to point out that you just made the case for Wiki-noia by posting for posterity that you think 1 in every 1,000,000 things you read on there is probably false. Can you back that up, or are you just making shit up? If you're making it up, what are the consequences? How many millions of things have you read on there? Am I supposed to assume you would exercise greater scholarly discipline writing a Wiki entry than you do in a comment stream? Based on what?
Hence, the problem. The idea is wonderful. The world it's being exercised in is not disciplined enough to make it more than a curiosity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Not a good source.
Can you back up that Encyclopedias are more reliable than Wikipedia? In fact, can you back up that Wikipedia is as "undisciplined" as you imply? Techdirt has provided some information on that previously, but then again, it might be *gasp* biased and imperfect, so I am guessing you will just go ahead with saying nothing is perfect and Wikipedia sucks. Good for you, my imperfect friend.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Let the paranoid be paranoid. They can spend hours pouring through books to find out something that takes the rest of us a ten-minute lookup on Wikipedia :-). Especially with tech-related topics, the Wikipedia articles are generally more complete, clearer and more correct than articles in "official" books (which, especially for textbooks, do not have to be "peer-reviewed" like some of you suggested).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
deletion
yea, they deleted a sweet article that I wrote about my band, it may have been a little bias, but there were no other articles on point, so uncool. Anyway you can check it out at http://www.myspace.com/thepsychotropics , and hopefully write your own article, thanks!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: So nothing is citable?
i think you need to know the author in order to cite material. Since wikipedia can be anonymous or many authors, i dont see how you can cite it directly... maybe?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a good source.
Dorpass, people who work for encyclopedias and the media have consequences for getting it wrong, and they have to answer to somebody when they do. Even so, they get it wrong because as you've pointed out-- they're imperfect humans.
So if people for whom there are immediate and real consequences are making errors and skirting disciplined scholarly and journalistic methods, imagine what John Q. Public is doing with no consequences and answerable to no one. You might as well ask the next vacuum salesman who shows up at your front door.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: So nothing is citable?
Wikipedia articles cite numerous sources, how about that? That's something that our friendly Coward tries to ignore while trying to prove that nothing is citable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
thinking?
If you believe everything you read, better not read...
(japenese proverb)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source under any circumstances. It is however an appropriate way to find acceptable sources. If a student chooses to wikipedia a subject, and he or she then goes to the bibliography section of that subjects page, then, if there are reliable sources listed there, they may site one of THOSE sources, the original, hopefully peer-reviewed source. There is no legitimate argument that the wikipedia page itself can be used as a source because even if there are legitimate sources cited, they are interpreted by the poster and could misrepresent the factual data."
Your opinion holds no weight. You didn't cite anything at all and therefore, we must assume everything you said to be false. You provided no references to other peer-reviewed sources to support your thesis which undermines your comment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not a good source.
And maybe I can cite you if I want to quote an idiot. It's spelled cite, not site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/12/nature_magazine_checks_out_wik.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Apparently, in this new age of the Internet, things like spelling, punctuation and grammar are no longer considered important.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
by annonymus cowerd on Nov 1st, 2007 @ 9:13pm
Apparently, in this new age of the Internet, things like spelling, punctuation and grammar are no longer considered important.
You spelled "Anonymous Coward" incorrectly. =)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I was so excited to post my joke that I forgot to enter my information. Excellent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Amen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I hate bad grammar. The most irritating thing about trying to read through a comment stream is having to trudge through each horribly written line like a it's a jungle adventure gone awry. WHY CAN"T ANYONE WRITE ANYMORE?? Is it really that difficult? Granted, our American education system is a joke, but knowing the difference between you're and your, and there and their, just isn't that damn hard. It's one thing if it is clear shorthand or whatever, but if one is trying to make an intellectual statement or argument, it is nearly impossible to take him or her serious when half the shit they type makes no sense. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Sorry. All done now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I must apologize to all those who do try hard to construct proper syntax. I am aware that there are plenty of people that are great at writing. Thank you for being coherent; it makes up for the ones that aren't.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wiki Garbage
As a student I think Wikipedia is garbage.
Trying to change any information without admin status will usually get your change reverted by the admin that created that page. Arguing in defense of your edit is like screaming at a brick wall. I think to some of these people its a matter of pride, like their own 15 seconds of fame. No matter how wrong their article is they will not allow anyone to change it.
Lately there have been alot of people who make it their mission to post incorrect information as well. If you look up the group ecyclopededia dramatica you will find a group of human beings dedicated to destroying wikipedia by posting bad information, deleting good information, and generally making an ass of themselves whenever possible.
I am going to stick to a encyclopedia for general information and I will read credible journals and research materials when I need to write a report for class.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
student use
We've certainly heard of plenty of students who are told that they're not allowed to cite Wikipedia, which seems silly.
Seriously Mike? It's silly to not allow students to cite an information source that can be written and changed by anyone, anywhere? I teach at a university and absolutely forbid students from citing Wikipedia, but not from using it. Just as Criminologist Kelle said, I tell the students it's a great starting place when researching an unfamiliar topic, but by no means should it ever be cited. I also forbid students from citing encyclopedias, newspapers, and magazines, because they are simply not scholarly sources. Do you think that's silly too?
Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia and use it daily, but it has no place as a reference in scholarly papers. I do like the idea of having students write their own articles for it. I'll have to use that in class at some point.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Dorpass, people who work for encyclopedias and the media have consequences for getting it wrong, and they have to answer to somebody when they do."
Have you ever researched the way schoolbooks are written, printed and sold? That is a horror show that gets none of the scrutiny the supposed problems with Wikipedia seem to recieve. Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia Galactica compared to the garbage teachers use to teach children. It is up to the minute, never mind up to date, and vigorously reviewed. Claims to the contrary are simply ignorant.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A Thought on Innovation
Wikipedia allows content that the traditional encyclopedia would not touch. Students in college do a lot of research.
Wikipedia is missing a golden opportunity to innovate. Wikipedia could try to incorporate doctoral/masters theses into itself (or at least have a section devoted to linking academic content)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
We need a better Wikipedia
I love Wikipedia since it provides a great amount of useful information and a place where people can share their knowledge with each other. Unfortunately, as we already know, the reliability of information provided by Wikipedia is sometimes questioned.
I think Wikipedia needs to change some of their concepts (or innovate as Steve R. said). However, it will be very difficult, if it is not impossible, to make radical changes to Wikipedia.
For this reason, I started a website called Ezclopedia (http://www.ezclopedia.com). The website is still in alpha version and has only basic functionality. I will develop more features based on feedback from authors and users. By listening to authors' and users' needs, I hope Ezclopedia can be a better alternative to Wikipedia. Please check it out, I will really appreciate your feedback.
Thanks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
abt weaky wiki
The problem HERE in africa is not the veracity of the virtual or the printed! it is you got almost only wiki handy and current: it takes centiuries and centimes, in millions, to reach your real library: so tell me, what should a student do to deposit his/her thesis in 12months!maybe judge his mastery of doc/research techniques while days of handier accuracies!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment