July 5, 2006
Wise Words on Wikipedia
Kairosnews has printed a policy statement—drafted by Alan Liu, a professor of English at the University of California at Santa Barbara—that tries to lay down the law on a tricky question: When is it OK for students to cite Wikipedia in their scholarly work?
Some professors might wish the Web site’s name never turned up in students’ papers, but Mr. Liu argues that Wikipedia can be a useful, if limited, source:
[A] Wikipedia citation can be an appropriate convenience when the point being supported is minor, noncontroversial, or also supported by other evidence. In addition, Wikipedia is an appropriate source for some extremely recent topics (especially in popular culture or technology) for which it provides the sole or best available synthetic, analytical, or historical discussion.
But that should be about the extent of it, Mr. Liu suggests. Wikipedia should never be used as the primary source for information on “anything that is central to an argument, complex, or controversial,” he says.
And he makes a good point about the ephemerality of the site: Since articles are continually contested and changed, citing a Wikipedia entry without noting the date on which it was viewed is “meaningless,” he argues.
We’d love to hear professors share their views on Mr. Liu’s statement—or their own policies on Wikipedia citation—with us. —Brock Read
Posted on Wednesday July 5, 2006 Permalink
Comments
Mr. Liu’s proposed language on Wikipedia citations is good, but probably too subtle for many fresh/sophs.
I have banned Wiki citations outright, but suggest it’s a good place to get an overview of a research topic.
— amstud Jul 6, 07:53 AM #
I agree with Prof. Liu’s policy. Anyone can make changes to entries; therefore, credibility is not maintained. I tell my students that Wikipedia is best used as a place to jump-start their research for information or ideas, and that they are to find credible sources to substantiate their ideas; Wikipedia is not dependable as a sole voice of authority. While I allow the website to appear on my students’ reference page, the source does not count as one of the required sources.
— Diana Fox Jul 6, 08:02 AM #
I don’t treat Wikipedia differently from any other encyclopedia for student research papers – it is a useful background source for basic overviews, but can never be used as one of the required secondary sources. Faculty should distinguish between the Wiki- and -pedia aspects of the site – for me, encyclopedias have a limited role in higher ed, but wikis are more important. I encourage students to use wikis both as a site to gain knowledge and to share it. If students write a paper on a topic that Wikipedia isn’t clear, accurate, or detailed about, I encourage them to make the changes based on their research. By learning to share their research publicly, the stakes change and their understanding of the collective knowledge of sites like Wikipedia is greatly enhanced.
— Jason Mittell Jul 6, 08:28 AM #
Wikipedia poses a particularly difficult problem for reference librarians assisting freshmen and sophomores in gathering research because its entries are often the most prominent results in a Google search. It does allow us to give students a quick lesson in authority of sources, of course. At our institution we have come to use it as a starting place in research, just as we would Britannica or Americana. As previously noted, Wikipedia is often the best place to find the meaning of a very new term, but we warn students that their professors may not accept it as an authorative source.
— Cy Dillon Jul 6, 08:51 AM #
There are now many excellent scholarly encyclopedias available online. Academic libraries subscribe to these sources and provide access through their home pages. Professors and students can consult with their librarians to learn more about them. I’m not discounting Wikepedia but these propietary sources provide the same high-quality content from established publishers that their print predecessors did. While it may not be appropriate for students to cite them as sources, they can provide excellent background information and introductions. And since they’re online, they are available to students 24/7. Can you tell I’m a librarian?! I know the librarians at your campuses will be glad to help you!
— Kathryn Crowe Jul 6, 09:35 AM #
Mr. Liu’s policy sounds reasonable. I have found it challenging to communicate to first-year students why Wikipedia (along with other easily accessible sources) may be useful in a limited way but is not sufficient alone.
To begin with, general-interest encyclopedias, regardless of form and authorship, do not constitute adequate scholarly sources, in my view. In this sense, Wikipedia is no different from the others. That’s the thing that I usually stress.
The more difficult issue for me involves the tentative and constantly changes entries that may or may not be accurate at any given time. On the one hand, as I tell students, that can make Wikipedia entries untrustworthy in some cases.
What I haven’t talked with students about, though, is the fact that, on a different level, this tentative putting forward of views to be challenged is pretty much the same thing that happens with scholarly publication—except that with Wikipedia it happens faster and is open to a larger audience.
— T. Allen Culpepper Jul 6, 10:04 AM #
I’m glad to see several comments suggesting that no encyclopedias should be used as primary sources. I think Alan Liu’s recommendation is quite reasonable, certainly more so than those who ban any use of Wikipedia.
— Michele F. Rosen Jul 6, 10:05 AM #
Mr. Lui’s guidance is very useful; however it assumes Wikipedia provides somewhat reliable information. Many citations are no better than information found on a blog, which may take a student’s research in the wrong direction.
— Martin Smith Jul 6, 10:22 AM #
I have noticed more use of this site than ever before, particularly among the military students. Most of the time they do not quote from it. I believe there are many more useful sites than this one. I will discourage the use of Wikipedia.
Sally Mitchell July 6, 2006
— sally mitchell Jul 6, 11:28 AM #
As a long time librarian as well as IT director and professor, I’d suggest contacting the library community. There have been broad ranging discussions about the legitimacy of web based information, and a key issue is teaching critical thinking about evaluating the authority of web based information as, more and more students want everything via the web. Students need to learn how to determine the validity of web based material. In an age where my parrakeet has a web page, even portals to authoritative content (which Libraries are providing more and more, and with the content providers working with citation manager software, building in ease of reference is a real plus) but there can still be links to material out in “the wild”. For instance the NSF funded National Science Digital Library (http://www.nsdl.org) is a great effort, but is a very distributed collection that suffers from some of the same “moving target content” as Wikipedia.
— John Isenhour Jul 6, 11:58 AM #
I teach a one unit information literacy class with both young and adult students. Young students love Wikipedia, but I have a harder time telling the adult students not to use other pseudo-fact sites like Answers.com or Ask.com. Some have a bottom-line approach to school (get the degree and get a job/raise) that blinds them to the dangers of easy answer sites like these. I try to focus on evaluation of sources more than “don’t use this site or else.”
— Amy Jul 6, 12:17 PM #
Wikipedia is an example of the open source environment that is part of our global communication and information infrastructure not only for businesses but also within the education community. Wikipedia is different from a blog because the initial postings are reviewed and content can be changed. It is more than just a threaded series of postings.
In the classes I teach one source is not sufficient nor is one source simply accepted. Today’s students must use critical thinking as well as having that astute librarian’s approach to critically assessing the value of the sources itself, not just what is recorded by one or two sources.
— Paul hudec Jul 6, 12:39 PM #
I actually provide links to Wikipedia pages and others for readings in a survey class on information technology. This use just broadens access to common definitions of terms and simple concepts. I thoroughly review each link before placing it on the class web site, but of course the nature of a “wiki” is that it may be revised. I feel that Wikipedia is much more than a common blog or “say anything you like” discussion site, and for my purposes it is one of several sites from which I have students gather simple insights. But I agree with several others whose opinions are represented here concerning its limited relevance as a citable resource; I think Alan Liu’s recommendation is reasonable.
— James Janossy Jul 6, 02:53 PM #
Wikipedia articles should be judged as they are. Some are slanted; others vapid. But some, like the 2006 World Cup, are masterpieces that no governmental, academic or commercial publisher could come close to matching in quality.
— David McCullough Jul 6, 02:56 PM #
I think the Kairos statement is good, but it only talks about students’ passive use of Wikipedia. That misses most of the point of this resource, and its primary value as a learning resource.
This is understandable, because the statement does have a limited intention and goal, and it works well to achieve that.
But I think there’s much more to be said about using Wikipedia (and other social software) for teaching and learning, because they allow students to be active participants, judges, authors, and critics—actually using the resource for what it can do, what makes it unique and powerful, not trying to force it into the mold of what it can’t.
I’ve tried to expand on these ideas (and others) in my own article at Academic Commons—http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/Ugoretz-social-software-folksonomy
— Joe Ugoretz Jul 6, 03:59 PM #
Our community college’s latest podcast discusses this issue with three of our humanities / English instructors. They each reiterated their opposition to the citation of wikis except possibly used as Mr. Liu suggests. It is interesting to wonder if / when the social networking sites will achieve academic acceptance.
Our podcast can be reviewed / subscribed from:
janauscc.blogspot.com/
— Jana Ulrich Jul 6, 09:24 PM #
The Wikipedia is certainly useful, and I agree with the earlier comments. I’ll add that the problem of critical evaluation applies to all sources, and I believe that higher ed should emphasize this. I have more material on information literacy at http://www.ncsu.edu/it/open_source/it-educ-u.html
— Henry Schaffer Jul 8, 08:21 PM #
No comments:
Post a Comment