Does Wikipedia hurt scholarship?

NO
Wiki skills are essential in academics and life
By Thomas Locke

In February, I started a wiki with my elementary students. Using a format loosely inspired by Wikipedia, the students have created more than a thousand entries on topics ranging from allspice to Yu-Gi-Oh. I’ve been thrilled to see students actively reading, writing and editing; and the topics hold meaning for them. The wiki empowers students by giving them a space to publish their thoughts and continually refine them.

As wikis grow in popularity, some detractors have questioned their legitimacy in regard to scholarship. One of the main criticisms leveled at wikis is that many, like Wikipedia, are open to editing by anyone with Internet access. This leads to questions about the expertise and motives of those writing and editing the Wikipedia text.

In practice, however, such concerns have not proved particularly problematic. As in any resource, errors occur and writers have biases; media literacy and analytical skills are always important. Especially in wikis such as Wikipedia, however, the writing tends to be fairly reliable precisely because it is so widely used. When errors do occur, they often are corrected within hours. In a comparison of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia, the journal Nature found Britannica had only slightly fewer errors than Wikipedia.

Rather than harm scholarship, my experience has shown that wikis promote and inspire scholarship. A student may read an article, have her interest sparked, do more research and then contribute to the original article. If opinions differ, a debate may spring up in the discussion section of that article. This kind of exchange is an essential feature of scholarship—having one’s ideas challenged in a constructive manner and defending them by clarifying and offering examples and proofs.

Further, wikis facilitate a defining feature of traditional scholarship: publication. Changes to a wiki are immediately “published” for the entire world to see. Not only does this provide a real-world motivation for students, it also allows them to experience writing and editing as a dynamic endeavor.

Unlike a more static writing process in which publication marks the end of revisions and the end of the process, wiki writing is instantly published while undergoing infinite revisions. The wiki therefore brings literacy and accountability to a whole new level. Students are not simply skimming for content, they are constantly evaluating from an editor’s point of view in order to improve what they are reading/publishing.

Finally, as users build on one another’s articles, they learn firsthand how to work collaboratively in a community of other learners. These are skills that are essential in academia, and in life.

Thomas Locke is technology teacher at The Neighborhood School in New York City, serving prekindergarten through fifth grade.

YES
It promotes sloppy, 'first-hit' student research
By Dixie Andersen

Convincing a student that not all material found on the Web is true has become a difficult task in this information age. But the job has become even more difficult when so much of the questionable material is listed under Wikipedia’s “free encyclopedia” moniker. And it poses a true educator’s dilemma: whether ’tis nobler to demand credible, reliable and authored materials or to allow the use of a resource that is quick, easy and sometimes incredibly flawed?

I’ll take the former course every time.

It is no secret that Wikipedia allows anyone to create and write articles. And to quote Wikipedia: “Anyone can edit any article at any given time.” How can a student determine accuracy of the material in this type of shrouded environment? Accountability and credibility of the author is a baseline of research; it allows the audience to determine if material is accurate and credible. It’s a standard accepted by other competing online sources, such as Britannica, which cite credentials and stand behind what they publish. In contrast, Wikipedia’s disclaimer boldly states that the service “makes no guarantee of validity.”

Nor should it.

Wikipedia’s biography of John Seigenthaler—which appeared last year and remained online for a staggering four months—asserted that the man was suspected of involvement in the Kennedy assassinations. It was only yanked after Seigenthaler himself became aware of the article. The entry was later revealed to be a “joke.”

In this environment, how are students to figure out where the information ends and the “jokes” begin? And if they can’t, what possible service can Wikipedia offer to rigorous academics?

As educators, it is our responsibility to hold academic resources to the highest of expectations. We need to become role models in the research process. Credibility and responsibility are the two most important aspects of research. And teaching students the patience to delve into credible resources is the task and responsibility of the educator. We, as educators, cannot condone lazy techniques or unreliable research tools.

Last June, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales was speaking at a conference entitled “Hyperlinked Society,” which was held at the University of Pennsylvania. He acknowledged receiving e-mails daily from students complaining of failing grades because they had utilized misinformation found in Wikipedia. Perhaps his service should add another disclaimer: Wikipedia cautions students that the quality of information contained here fails to pass muster with a large segment of academia.