Wikipedia is an online website that has a plethora of information available to its viewers. However, the issue being brought up is "wikiality". What exactly is the reality of Wikipedia? After doing research on the topic of wikiality, I came to my own personal conclusion that Wikipedia is not a 100% reliable resourse, therefore, I would not encourage my students or myself to use the website as a source of valuable information.
My conclusion of this topic was first confirmed on the very first day of my freshman year of college during my undergraduate studies. At our library orientation, the students services director brought the Wikipedia website to our attention. She explained to us that any person can go in and edit or add a Wikipedia web page on the Wikipedia web site. There was no need to enter a password or show any credentials. This makes the truth to the information added very questionable. How much of it is actual fact? How much is only the opinion of the editor? Worst yet, how much of the information is completely false?
When doing a quick search on a topic, Wikipedia is often the first result. That leads me to believe that most people that search a topic will most likely first look on Wikipedia. With its contents being viewed so regularly, it makes the page more susceptable to errors because more people have access to changing its contents. When people read something they believe it is true, like they often do when reading the newspaper or watching the news. Why would anybody have reason to think that the information on Wikipedia is not true? Therefore, people are apt to believe that what they are reading is a solid resource. They would have no reason to think that they should get a second opinion or even to change the untrue facts on they website to something that can be backed up by another resource. If anything, reading the information on the website may make someone question their own previous knowledge on a particular topic before they would get a second opinion.
After watching the Colbert video my thoughts about Wikipedia were confirmed. He actually edited the web page with ridiculous information. There was no one there to tell him no, or to ask of proof of his edits, he simply edited the page and continued on. If someone had absolutely no previous knowledge about a topic, they would have no reason not to believe what they were reading. I think this is a scary thought.
My overall conclusion about Wikipedia is that it can have some valuable and real information on it, but because I cannot say that about everything found on the website, it should not be used at all as a reliable resource. Students do research to learn. I would not want them to learn false information because they found it on an unsecured website. I stand behind this opinion the strongest when talking about using Wikipedia in the classroom. All schools that I have worked in have discouraged the use of Wikipedia as a source of information. I stand behind this opinion and will use the same general rule in my classroom.
In your post about Wikipedia you used the phrase, "reliable resource." Your adjective choice clearly defines the debate. Wikipedia is a resource; I don't think anyone would question that statement. Its reliability is entirely a different issue. In the past I have used Wikipedia as a resource for a paper. Needless to say, my paper had red ink on the works cited page when it was returned. I also share your fear that students will assume everything they read on Wikipedia is fact; perhaps it is the "pedia" part of the word that confuses. In the end, good intentions do not always equate to good.
ReplyDeleteJulie Simonsen
I think it's great that your university approached this subject during its library orientation. If that university's overall policy is not to let its students use Wikipedia as a cited resource, then it's very valuable to students to know that upfront.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if our school library talks about Wikipedia during its orientations. It would be a great way to introduce the questionable nature of Wikipedia's information. Although we don't have a set school policy, every teacher I spoke with agreed that they don't let their students use Wikipedia as a cited source, and would probably appreciate the library staff's support. Something to look into...
I know that many schools and educational settings have opted to deter students from using Wikipedia. While I understand schools taking this stance, I don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that all sources are legitimate in the sense that they give us the ability to process information. Even if the subject matter on Wikipedia has incorrect elements, it can still be used as comparison with information obtained from other sources.
The only error, in my mind, would be to rely on Wikipedia as a sole source. I'm not certain that any researcher would use only one source to confirm or deny an idea. Because a minimum of three sources is the standard - and often more than that are used - I believe it's safe to keep Wikipedia in the forefront of research. Besides, when conducting online searches, it will inevitably be one of the first things to pop up on any given subject.
-L. Denise Wells
Good post. Thanks for sharing the personal experience.
ReplyDelete