A few weeks ago, a district employee involved in technology integration sent out the monthly newsletter about technology. Included was a link to an article on Wikipedia. She later received negative comments about her support of Wikipedia. She and I got to chat yesterday as she was preparing to issue a retraction and formal statement about how Wikipedia has virtually no use in the classroom because of its volunteer editing process. She nearly fell victim to the Britannica argument! We chatted a bit, and I referenced David Warlick’s blog posting about this very topic. She asked me to help her with a blurb to include. Now remember, this theoretically goes out to my entire district, so I have to be careful, as does she. At the same time, we have a chance to really make a difference in how folks think. Here is what I wrote. It has not been submitted yet, I wanted to hear your feedback first. Please help!
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is free of charge, and undergoes no formal peer or academic review process. Does that mean it holds no academic credibility? That depends. For a thorough review of the? Civil War, you will find a comprehensive study in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia, however, is much stronger in the arenas of pop culture and contemporary technology. For example, on August 24, when Pluto was deemed to no longer be a planet, the Wikipedia article on Pluto was updated with this new information within seconds of the announcement. After closer scrutiny, it was edited over 90 times before midnight the same day. Were any of the edits incorrect? Potentially. Were they fixed immediately? Yes. Who was posting these edits? People like you and me. One may debate as to whether Wikipedia is an appropriate primary source, and there have been studies (i.e. Nature) that indicate Wikipedia has a comparable error rate to Britannica, but ultimately this sheds light on our need as educators to teach students not only where to find information, but how to validate it. No longer can we say, “go to the Internet and find out”. This is the face of changing literacy.
What do you think? Did I articulate it well? How should I change it?
David Warlick says:
The task, the skill, is knowing when Britannica is appropriate, and when Wikipedia is. It could well be that the newsletter was an inappropriate place to cite Wikipedia. However, that it has gotten this conversation going is a very good thing. I would never consider Wikipedia a primary source of information. However, that does not mean that it is without value. The Pluto example that you cite is a perfect example. You talk about the Civil War. It is quite possible that the Wikipedia will have more and better information about the Civil War than does Britannica.
To me, it would make sense to say that the Wikipedia is a good first place to go to do your research, but almost never the last place to go. A lot of people are citing the Wikipedia, as evidenced its articles rising to the tops of Google searches. But we do this more out of celebration of a new and richly valuable source of information — ourselves. If I’m citing something that I need agreement on among my audience, then I’m going to cite a source that I know they will agree with.
Bottom line, get our heads out of the sand, look around, reflect, and think about what kids need to be learning about information in a world where Wikipedia (and it’s ilk) won’t be going away!
2? Worth!
10th October 2006 at 9:53 am
Ben says:
I say roll with it Chris. And if you want to go for the extra selling point (which I believe you started to make), you might want to spell out the fact that Britannica won’t give you nearly as much information about Pluto’s denouncement unless you are willing to PAY for the premium service. While the free entry does say that it is a former planet, it does not give nearly the in-depth breakdown of how the decision was made. Just a few sentences compared to the entire section within the Pluto definition on Wikipedia.
Of course, you could always go with the argument that the kids are probably already using wiki-like sites, with mass numbers of contributors, for their home research into personal interests already. I doubt many students head off to britannica.com when they want to learn something on their own.
10th October 2006 at 9:57 am
Ben says:
I disagree with David, respectfully of course, on using Wikipedia as a primary resource. While it is true that Wikipedia should not be your only resource (that’s just good sense when it comes to basic research skills), it is a completely valid primary source when conducting research.
Consider the impact that Howard Zinn has had on the way we view history in the US. By publishing “The People’s History” and other firsthand accounts (written by less than expert eye-witnesses of an era), we have developed a much better sense of what history was really like in the U.S. Using first-hand and primary sources we understand events much better than by simply reading Britannica or other professional publications. Likewise, Wikipedia provides not only the information needed, but also a much needed look into how “average” people view the world around them. Granted, not all of Wikipedia’s authors are average ?joes?, and many might be individuals considered for positions as editors at Britannica or other commercial encyclopedias. Whether they are curious amateurs or professional-grade (to borrow a GM slogan), many voices are valid in creating a much broader view of a subject.
10th October 2006 at 10:05 am
Tom Hoffman says:
You shouldn’t refer to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia as a “primary source” simply because “primary source” has a specific definition in the context of research which generally excludes encyclopedias. OK, technically on of the things that makes Wikipedia interesting is that a given article could be a primary source (I could write the article about me) but presumably you aren’t trying to complexify the issue here.
10th October 2006 at 10:35 am
Ben says:
Right you are Tom. Perhaps we should have been saying “lead source”. It’s interesting to note however, that you linked your primary source definition to Wikipedia and not a more traditional resource
10th October 2006 at 11:27 am
The Tech Savvy Educator » Blog Archive » I disagree, Mr. Warlick says:
[...] I have written what many in the ed tech community might consider to be obscene. In my finite and minuscule wisdom I have openly disagreed with Mr. David Warlick (one of the leading authorities on ed tech) on the issue of using Wikipedia as a legitimate primary or lead source when using the Internet for research. It happened before I even had a chance to really consider whether or not I should make such a hasty statement, but before I could bridle my youthful passion, my fingers has typed up a quick comment praising Wikipedia for it’s open-editing process over at Christopher Craft’s “Open Source” Blog, even going so far as to compare the resources being developed on Wikipedia to Howard Zinn’s ?A People’s History of the U.S.? [...]
10th October 2006 at 11:40 am
DougHolton says:
Perhaps someone can put up a wiki page summarizing all these arguments concerning wikipedia in education. There was this earlier summary here:
http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/learning.now/2006/07/wikipedia_in_the_classroom_con.html
10th October 2006 at 7:44 pm
DougHolton says:
I guess I should post my own opinion. I haven’t really given it a lot of thought. I think wikipedia is great, and should be used by students (pre-high school, after that, just as an informal information source).
But I also think this debate is a bit inconsequential. It’s like most political arguments, which are usually about things that don’t matter the most (gay marriage? estate taxes?). It would be an important debate if students were not using wikipedia. Then debating it would be important to getting more teachers and parents to encourage its use. But students are already using wikipedia. They are going to use it (just like cliff notes), whether we tell them to or not.
p.s. Great blog, glad I ran across it.
10th October 2006 at 7:50 pm
mscofino » Blog Archive » Wiki Wonderland says:
[...] This got me thinking about something else… I remembered reading Vicki Davis’ post a few weeks ago about the effect that Wikipedia will have on textbooks given the rapid pace of technological and scientific change we are experiencing. I remember thinking that was a very interesting idea. And really, how can textbook authors, editors, publishers and manufacturers keep up with these developments? And today, I found David Warlick’s 2 Cents, and Christopher Craft’s post about the same topic which reminded me of the original post. And then I remembered something else interesting: Many of you may not know, but we in Malaysia (and Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia) experience something called “the haze” annually (during the dry season) due to slash and burn agriculture on Sumatra. [...]
10th October 2006 at 10:15 am
Kevin J says:
Chris,
I am wondering if you are trying to get your peers to accept Wikipedia as a legitimate reference source or just simply opening the door for the students to explore alternate sources of information? Obviously, the former will be more difficult than the latter. We have had this same debate internally where I work as we are frequently in need of legitimate and citable resources. Most in the office (70% of them are English majors and two former English teachers) tend to shy away from Wikipedia for the same reasons already mentioned. Wikipedia is still several years away from being accepted as a “legitimate” resource due to it’s age for one and the lack of accountability for two. Anyone who uses Wikipedia knows that it is very timely information and covers some (if not most) topics better than its’ subscription counterparts. For those that don’t use it and don’t trust it, you are not likely to dissuade them so easily. The better question to find an answer for may be “What percentage of college professors accept Wikipedia citations as a legitimate reference?” Answer that question and you are much more likely to win over converts at the middle and high school levels. Good luck though and I commend your efforts!
10th October 2006 at 10:35 pm
Kevin J says:
From: http://bl-ids-website.ads.iu.edu/news/story.php?id=37478
In an unscientific survey of 222 IU faculty members conducted by the Indiana Daily Student, 44 percent of faculty members said that even if they have issues with the Web site, they at least allow students to cite Wikipedia articles in work they turn in, compared to 35 percent who expressly disallow it.
10th October 2006 at 10:44 pm
James Gates says:
You both should watch this video by Jimmy Wales, founder of wikipedia:http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_wales
I think you’ll both come away with a new appreciation for it.
10th October 2006 at 6:25 am
Vicki Davis says:
We have to remember that our purpose is to create students who will succeed in the real world. If we attempt to sanitize the real world and filter out innaccurate information, students will emerge without real information literacy skills.
It is vital that students have information literacy skills. It is not a topic for librarians any more. Ask the teacher who has child bring in a report and used one Internet source and you’ll know that kids need to understand how to filter through information.
I think that ivory tower academicians want to keep control of knowledge and restrict students to just textbooks. This is not happening anymore because kids are using their computers at home.
So, I teach my students that it is fine to use wikipedia, google definitions, encyclopedias, books, etc. but it is their job to synthesize and summarize the general consensus of knowledge that emerges from such an investigation.
It is not about the source but the process of reviewing sources! Anyone who thinks otherwise misses the point of education.
We are an information society not an industrial society. We don’t need to know how to mindlessly follow one set of instructions in one book. We need to know how to review all of the information and produce summaries of that information and contribute to the discussions.
The world has changed but many educators are fighting it tooth and nail.
Good for you for speaking out on this important issue.
10th October 2006 at 9:19 am
Michael Misovec says:
Helping Students Education Corp. is a secure wiki and allows teachers to customize their own groups and wiki pages.
http://www.helpingstudents.org
10th October 2006 at 10:55 am