Full Disclosure: I am a heavy Wikipedia user. While my biggest use of it is often looking up the height or age of a celebrity, many times I have also used it as a jumping-off point for research. If I need to learn about a new unfamiliar topic, Wikipedia is the best place to start for a quick summary of any topic. I think the key to using Wikipedia for research is to simply use it as a starting place and not the absolute authority on any topic.
As Terdiman’s article points out, Wikipedia does have some issues with accuracy. I was intrigued to find out, however, that its average errors per page is not significantly higher than Encyclopedia Britannica. What I like about Wikipedia is how quickly the information is updated (usually). Wikipedia also features citations at the bottom of each article, so it is possible to see where the info is coming from and further evaluate its accuracy. For this post, I took a look at the Britannica site for the first time. There are no citations. I don’t actually know where their information is coming from beyond being able to see which editor added the information and when. Additionally, I prefer Wikipedia’s simple layout- there aren’t as many photos and links unrelated to the article topic as there are on Britannica's site.
Listening to the podcast about the gender of Wikipedia editors still did not deter me from thinking it is a valuable tool. I was surprised to learn that so few women are editing articles. However, just because women are not editing the articles doesn’t mean they can’t. As a man, I even find the cutthroat practice of deleting other’s information to be turn off. However, as the podcast describes, the ethos of these editors is to make the articles as high quality as possible. I am not sure what the solution is to getting more women on Wikipedia- perhaps just awareness and everyone generally being more kind in online spaces.
Wikipedia can be a valuable tool for students when they are taught how to use it correctly. I will be attempting my first research-based project with 7th grades in the next month, and I know that this issue is going to come up. My goal is going to be to teach the students how to use Wikipedia as a place to start, but then use the citations in Wikipedia or a Google search to verify any information they find. With all the talk about fake news in the media, I think this is an excellent time for teachers to be instructing students of all ages how to find good information and be able to verify its legitimacy.
Wikipedia does have citations on their pages, but that does not mean the sources of the information came from a reliable vetted source. Encyclopedia Britannica might not have references, but I am pretty sure that the information that they collect comes from the experts in that field and from vetted sources. The errors that occur are from human error or the information on subject is too new or the experts information was not accurate. Lets face it the Encyclopedia was go to for information for years, and if the information did not come from reliable sources they would not have lasted as long as they did. Encyclopedias are written for the most part to be unbiased where Wikipedia could be written with the authors biases.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the sources cited on Wiki articles are not necessarily reliable, but there are there for me to judge. I think this is the point where being a smart consumer of information comes into play. I think teaching kids how to judge the reliability of sources is incredibly important today.
DeleteYou make a valid point that it is very important for as teachers to teach our students to be smart consumers. To make the smart informed decisions about the reliability of there sources.
DeleteTwo comments here. 1. As one of the links I provided in the email last week showed, none of these resources are infallible. 2. While a bit unrelated, we have, in the past, relied on 'eminence-based' information (from experts) rather than evidence-based (with data). Particularly in medicine, many of the recommendations we've heard over the years does not hold up to research scrutiny. In a related sense, history is written by the victors and the elite. There's plenty of things glossed over in textbooks, etc., in our history. Less a matter of true/false and more a matter of inclusion/omission.
DeleteFull disclosure, I do not use Wikipedia a lot and when I do it is not my first choice of source/tool. That being said, I do still believe it is a useful starting place ... just as you mentioned. The citations which are included, also allow the user to filter some of the information based on source and reliability. If I were introducing a project on us of Wikipedia in my class. I would introducing it by presenting both the strong and not so strong attributes of it. I feel the students should understand that Wikipedia is a tool that may fit certain situations, but not all. Just as the article states, Wikis need to be examined through many factors for successful integration into educational practices.
ReplyDeleteI do not use Wikipedia often but when I do, it satisfies my needs to retrieve information that I am looking for consistently and with accuracy. Until I ready Terdiman's article relating to accuracy as you mentioned Kleven, I was a little surprised. I guess by considering Wikipedia as a tool of the "world wide web" of learning, I expected the accuracy to be a little more enhanced with technology advances to retrieve information. With that, the updating of information with Wikipedia on a regular shows a part of reliability with change of information for learning depending of how is used.
ReplyDelete