Wikipedia?

I learned a lot about Wikipedia from the required readings, and I was motivated to read further about this pervasive source. In previous years, as a high-school English teacher, I was aware that students frequently turned to Wikipedia for information. I drew their attention to the possibility of bias, omissions, and inaccuracies, and I stipulated that students could not use Wikipedia as a source in their research papers, although they were welcome to visit the site as a starting point during the research process. Now, having read several articles about Wikipedia, I realize that I could have spent more time working with my students to examine and evaluate Wikipedia--in comparison to the online encyclopedia and databases purchased by our district--as an exercise in critical analysis.

Although I recognize that no encyclopedia is perfect, I have always trusted the authority of established encyclopedias, such as World Book or Britannica, over Wikipedia. Recently, however, I have been hearing that Wikipedia is becoming more reliable. The readings for Lesson 6 have helped me to better understand the value and the flaws of Wikipedia.

I learned from Berinstein that only verifiable information can be included in Wikipedia and that there is a "no original research" policy. Also, Berinstein points out that all changes are tracked and can be viewed via the History tab on each page. Although errors can occur unintentionally or purposefully, most are corrected quickly, as Alexander M.C. Halavais, an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac College, revealed when he deliberately planted thirteen errors in various Wikipedia articles. Within three hours, Wikipedia editors had found and deleted all of the false information (Read). Some errors can exist for long periods of time without being discovered, as the case of John Seigenthaler Sr., illustrated. A Wikipedia article claimed that he was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, and the article remained uncorrected for 123 days (Berinstein). Since then, Wikipedia has required every contributor to be a registered user, but anyone can register. "The logic behind the change is that forcing people to register will slow down the creation of new pages and allow quality checkers to keep up" (Berinstein). Wikipedia articles have been evaluated by different experts with differing results: some articles are excellent, some are poor (Read).

According to Berinstein, "because of Wikipedia's known methodology and vulnerabilities, it provides opportunities to teach (and learn) critical thinking." I agree that with middle and high-school students, it is important to look at the creation process of Wikipedia and teach students how to evaluate this source. As Chris Harris points out, students and many of their parents are consulting Wikipedia frequently (26). If we prohibit its use entirely, or fail to teach students how to evaluate Wikipedia, we are not adequately preparing students to think critically--a skill they will need to succeed in post-secondary education and to make informed decisions in their adult lives. Harris presents three rules for research that should be taught to students:
1.At least three sources are required to verify research.
2.General encyclopedias like Wikipedia are a great place to get started, however …
3.Serious research projects cannot cite general knowledge encyclopedias.(26)

Not all librarians see the benefit of starting with Wikipedia, however. In a letter responding to Harris' article, Sandy Miller argues that teacher-librarians should be promoting the use of databases purchased by school districts. She also points out that "the rule of three sources for fact verification does not necessarily apply to Web sites. You can easily find multiple Web sites that replicate-that is, plagiarize-incorrect information on a particular topic. A better idea is to encourage students and their tax-paying parents to use edited online database sources first. Why begin with bad information?" (11).

As a teacher-librarian at a K-5 school, I agree with Miller that I should first be teaching students to access and use effectively the online databases available through our district's web site. Young students have less ability to evaluate sites, and some parents are very particular about the sites their children visit online.

Older students, however, must be taught to think critically about all information that they encounter. According to Berinstein, "the flap over Wikipedia was significantly overblown, but contained a silver lining: People are becoming more aware of the perils of accepting information at face value. They have learned not to consult just one source. They know that authors and editors may be biased and/or harbor hidden agendas." These comments may be true of some adults and teens, but many students still do not know that they should check more than one source (or, in some cases, can't be bothered to do so). After having read these four articles about Wikipedia, I will make the use of Wikipedia with middle and high-school students a priority (if I move from my K-5 position). With practice, students can learn to take what is good about Wikipedia and disregard what is flawed. They can learn to think for themselves, a more powerful lesson than learning which sources are teacher approved.


Works Cited

Berinstein, Paula. "Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kid's All Right (And So's the Old Man)." Searcher 14.3(2006): 16-26. Academic Search Premier. Web. June 12, 2011.

Harris, Chris. (2007). "Can we make peace with Wikipedia?" School Library Journal 53.6(2007):26. Professional Development Collection. Web. June 12, 2011.

Miller, Sandy. "Wikipedia vs. Databases." School Library Journal 53.8 (2007): 11. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. June 12, 2011.

Read, Brock. "Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" Chronicle of Higher Education 53.10 (2006):A31-A36. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. June 12, 2011.