Spring Break
Wikipedia: Teachers have a lot to learn
Fenan Solomon
Issue date: 9/26/08 Section: Opinion
Trust me. It hurts me to write it just as much as it hurts you to read it, but the truth remains: It's midterm time. If you haven't already had an exam or a paper, you probably have one coming up soon. That speech from your professor on the ridiculous number of resources you'll need is almost guaranteed to be followed by the infamous speech prohibiting Wikipedia use.
I personally love Wikipedia. So naturally, when my professors explicitly banned its use, I was annoyed. Of course there are other sources more scholarly and credible, but when did Wikipedia become The National Enquirer of references? Yes, it's a free content encyclopedia where many people can contribute anonymously to topics, and yes, the editors may take a while before they can correct segments that are false, but who would attempt to lie about the molar mass of Carbon 13? As I am currently on my fifth semester of science classes including labs, not a single one has gone by where I haven't used the site as a quick reference tool. Furthermore, I noticed my physics professor using it to justify his reference to the national debt in a homework problem he wrote and then encouraging us to return to it for more details!
As I carefully thought about the types of classes I've taken and which professors discouraged which websites for validity, I noticed the chemistry, biology and physics departments really had no beef with Wiki. The controversy arose in my journalism and English courses. Of course, Wiki being the all-knowing source it is, the site has anticipated its skeptics and even included a disclaimer in its editorial model.
"Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations." The site further explains that "within the Wikipedia community, this is often phrased as 'verifiability, not truth' to express the idea that the readers are left themselves to check the truthfulness of what appears in the articles and to make their own interpretations." Therefore, anyone can use Wikipedia - but at their own discretion.
It is undeniable that almost every article in Wikipedia's database is prone to vandalism, agenda-pushing and every other form of sabotage that critics decry. This reality only means that using the site requires common sense, not that it can't be used at all. Checking an article's history, number of contributors and maybe perusing the citations at the bottom of the page would be intelligent. Wikipedia is clearly not appropriate as the sole source of information for your 100-plus-page senior thesis, but the site is undeniably handy for getting acquainted with a subject. Professors shouldn't be blindly railing against using Wikipedia; instead, they should be teaching students how to use it properly.
Fenan Solomon is a junior journalism and pre-pharmacy major. She can be reached at solomondbk@gmail.com.
I personally love Wikipedia. So naturally, when my professors explicitly banned its use, I was annoyed. Of course there are other sources more scholarly and credible, but when did Wikipedia become The National Enquirer of references? Yes, it's a free content encyclopedia where many people can contribute anonymously to topics, and yes, the editors may take a while before they can correct segments that are false, but who would attempt to lie about the molar mass of Carbon 13? As I am currently on my fifth semester of science classes including labs, not a single one has gone by where I haven't used the site as a quick reference tool. Furthermore, I noticed my physics professor using it to justify his reference to the national debt in a homework problem he wrote and then encouraging us to return to it for more details!
As I carefully thought about the types of classes I've taken and which professors discouraged which websites for validity, I noticed the chemistry, biology and physics departments really had no beef with Wiki. The controversy arose in my journalism and English courses. Of course, Wiki being the all-knowing source it is, the site has anticipated its skeptics and even included a disclaimer in its editorial model.
"Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations." The site further explains that "within the Wikipedia community, this is often phrased as 'verifiability, not truth' to express the idea that the readers are left themselves to check the truthfulness of what appears in the articles and to make their own interpretations." Therefore, anyone can use Wikipedia - but at their own discretion.
It is undeniable that almost every article in Wikipedia's database is prone to vandalism, agenda-pushing and every other form of sabotage that critics decry. This reality only means that using the site requires common sense, not that it can't be used at all. Checking an article's history, number of contributors and maybe perusing the citations at the bottom of the page would be intelligent. Wikipedia is clearly not appropriate as the sole source of information for your 100-plus-page senior thesis, but the site is undeniably handy for getting acquainted with a subject. Professors shouldn't be blindly railing against using Wikipedia; instead, they should be teaching students how to use it properly.
Fenan Solomon is a junior journalism and pre-pharmacy major. She can be reached at solomondbk@gmail.com.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
Geoff W
posted 9/26/08 @ 6:18 AM EST
"When did Wikipedia become The National Enquirer of references?" - well, for starters, probably about the time it became clear it had spent several years claiming there was a Hindu Pope, and actually banned any Hindu that tried to correct the nonsense. (Continued…)
Greg
posted 9/26/08 @ 11:17 AM EST
Another problem with wikipedia is that the information is ever changing. One week information may be there that isn't there another week.
Every fact on wikipedia is supposed to have a citation. (Continued…)
Tony
posted 9/26/08 @ 2:17 PM EST
Greg's comment is spot-on. Wikipedia isn't meant to be the be-all and end-all of references; it's just what it says on the tin, an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are very useful as a source to find more in-depth discussion of the topic at hand, and the requirement for citations for Wikipedia articles is intended to provide just that kind of resource. (Continued…)
Post a Comment