Wikipedia . . . in the classroom?

As someone who has recently embarked on the new adventure of teaching information literacy skills through sessions embedded in college freshmen ENG 102 courses, my relationship with Wikipedia tends to be a bit complicated sometimes.  Despite the fact that there is so little time to teach all that needs to be taught, when I am covering the section on finding good Web resources, I spend a few minutes talking about Wikipedia.  Inevitably when I ask students “Who here has used Wikipedia?” everyone raises their hands.  Teaching these lessons has really made me think about how to lead a conversation about Wikipedia with students who are not only inclined to get most (if not all) of their information from the Web, but who are now in the process of learning to navigate a number of new information tools and resources that the library offers.  It has further made me think about Wikipedia as a viable tool for research.  Can it be used?  If so, how?  Is there really a place for Wikipedia within the research process?

The good, the bad, and the nebulous . . .

Everything you need to know about Wikipedia can be found on their “About” page.  Wikipedia went live January 15, 2001, an offshoot project of Jimmy Wales’ Nupedia project.  The premise of Wikipedia is fairly simple: encyclopedia-like entries are written collaboratively by people from around the world.  Anyone can add entries or edit them.  Wikipedia has attracted ” . . . at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008″ and there are “more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages.”

Again, it is important to point out that anyone with Web access can edit Wikipedia.  This is both Wikipedia’s biggest advantage and disadvantage.  First, the more positive take on this notion is that Wikipedia harnesses the collective knowledge of thousands of individuals and even organizations that participate.  Furthermore, entries can be updated swiftly, as relevant changes occur, to reflect the most timely information.  How amazing is this!

However, not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia entries has correct information.  Some people, sadly, even have malicious intentions, and the information they post may work to dis- or misinformation readers.  Actually, in my opinion, an example of such a resource is Conservapedia, which calls itself the “trustworthy encyclopedia” and features articles written from a conservative viewpoint.  The interface looks a lot like Wikipedia, and the fact that such an obvious bias is not clearly stated prominently on their homepage is a huge issue, especially for unsuspecting users.

Problematic information on Wikipedia is less obvious and may be embedded into the entries, but, the Wikipedia communities, namely, the ones built around specific topics, do work as watchdogs to make sure that the information posted in entries is accurate and unbiased.  Problematic entries can be reversed.  Readers can view a history of edits made to the page, as well as any discussion centered around the information in the entry.  The problem with this though is some Wikipedia members get proprietary about the entries and reverse edits that can actually improve the entries.  Compromises can be made, but at what cost to the Wikipedia entry?  It is an unstable information environment.  Entries can change from hour to hour, if not minute to minute.

A whole other related issue is that many people who turn to the Web for information and that stumble upon Wikipedia do not always understand how Wikipedia works and they take the information found there at face value.

The value of info literacy and Wikipedia

Here’s where I advocate for information literacy and the careful use of Wikipedia . . .

Wikipedia needs to be addressed in information literacy sessions.  Whether you like it or not, students use Wikipedia for their research.  There is no avoiding it and it does have value–show students how to use it WISELY!

What to tell students:

• Never, ever cite Wikipedia as a source for your paper!  It is not considered a credible or reliable source.
• When you are first starting research on an unfamiliar topic, it’s acceptable to use Wikipedia to get some background information or a better understanding of your research.  Then go check a vetted reference source and compare the information.
• Wikipedia may help you identify a possible paper topic.  Oftentimes, entries will, in fact, explain different perspectives that exist on the subject matter.  This can spark ideas for further exploration.
• Wikipedia can help you find other resource related to your topic.  Mine an entry’s bibliography to find credible resources that you can use for your paper.  While Wikipedia is not a citable source, it can possibly lead you to good, authoritative sources.

And if you’re like me, you use Wikipedia too (and in the appropriate way).  Come out of the proverbial Wikipedia closet–share that information with your students and show them the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating it into their research process.