Wikipedia use - nothing to be ashamed about
Monash University [Australia
“Lecturers should be encouraging their classes to edit and improve Wikipedia pages. At the very least, more academics should become Wikipedia editors – writing on their areas of expertise.”
“Wikipedia is here to stay, and universities should be getting more engaged with it rather than just trying to deny its existence.”
The study was one of a series on Technology Enabled Learning funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching. Articles have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management and Studies in Higher Education.
The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
October 27, 2011 08:00 AM
by Mark E. Moran
Reference: Using
Wikipedia
The blog author finds that all the criticisms listed above apply at least as much to academia itself as to Wikipedia. Bias, clubbiness, personal attacks and bluffing are so rife in the academic environment, that Wikipedia in comparison is a relief and refuge for the most part.
The Australia-UK collaboration led by Professor
Neil Selwyn at Monash
University
The study of more than 1600
students found that while Wikipedia was used by seven in eight students, the
world’s sixth most visited website wasn’t seen as the most useful education
resource. Google and other internet search engines, library websites, learning
management systems and Facebook all ranked higher. Most students used Wikipedia
for background research.
The researchers suggest that
given the important but relatively background role Wikipedia plays in student
life, universities should continue to consider ways of better integrating
Wikipedia into their accepted modes of teaching and learning provision.
“There are clearly many ways in
which universities need to engage more directly in supporting and enhancing the
role that Wikipedia is now playing in students’ scholarship,” Professor Selwyn
said.
“The early alarmist fears that
Wikipedia would lead to a dumbing down of university study was not apparent.
But neither is Wikipedia ushering in a new dawn of enlightenment and students
and teachers creating their own knowledge.“Lecturers should be encouraging their classes to edit and improve Wikipedia pages. At the very least, more academics should become Wikipedia editors – writing on their areas of expertise.”
“Wikipedia is here to stay, and universities should be getting more engaged with it rather than just trying to deny its existence.”
The study was one of a series on Technology Enabled Learning funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching. Articles have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management and Studies in Higher Education.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia
October 27, 2011 08:00 AM by Mark E. Moran
Wikipedia provides Internet users with
millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in
search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the
standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles
are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete
rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and
what it isn't.”
To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.
To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.
10. You must never fully rely on
any one source for important information.
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read.
The focus of your search should be on finding accurate information and forming a full picture of an issue, rather than believing the first thing you read. This is particularly true on the Internet, where anyone can publish, cheaply and quickly. Always verify important information by confirming it with multiple sources.
9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.
Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can't find this information.
8. The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.
In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.
Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.
7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003,U.K.
According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.
Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers' favor.
6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.
Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.
For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.
5. There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe andNorth America , and many of
them are in graduate school.
Although most of these editors are undoubtedly intelligent and passionate about enhancing the accuracy of Wikipedia, the site falls far short of its ideals of providing “the sum of all human knowledge” without the broad perspectives that a more diversified pool of editors would bring.
4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.
The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.
3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to thePalo Alto
Research Center
A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.
2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.
When the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde inAfghanistan
And finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on Wikipedia:
1. It says so on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read.
The focus of your search should be on finding accurate information and forming a full picture of an issue, rather than believing the first thing you read. This is particularly true on the Internet, where anyone can publish, cheaply and quickly. Always verify important information by confirming it with multiple sources.
9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.
Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can't find this information.
8. The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.
In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.
Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.
7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003,
According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.
Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers' favor.
6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.
Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.
For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.
5. There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and
Although most of these editors are undoubtedly intelligent and passionate about enhancing the accuracy of Wikipedia, the site falls far short of its ideals of providing “the sum of all human knowledge” without the broad perspectives that a more diversified pool of editors would bring.
4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.
The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.
3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the
A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.
2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.
When the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in
And finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on Wikipedia:
1. It says so on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”
Reference: Using
Wikipedia
Wikipedia can actually be a
constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn
more, read findingDulcinea’s
Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom.
North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the “article,” “discussion,” “edit this page” and “history” tabs to go “beneath the surface” of Wikipedia.
Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality. Though intended for laughs, it captures, in an entertaining fashion, why Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a sole source of information.
North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the “article,” “discussion,” “edit this page” and “history” tabs to go “beneath the surface” of Wikipedia.
Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality. Though intended for laughs, it captures, in an entertaining fashion, why Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a sole source of information.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments by the Blog Author
The blog author finds that all the criticisms listed above apply at least as much to academia itself as to Wikipedia. Bias, clubbiness, personal attacks and bluffing are so rife in the academic environment, that Wikipedia in comparison is a relief and refuge for the most part.
I am particularly disturbed by the pettiness and
pretentiousness of the criticisms above. He even invites us to mock Wikipedia with Stephen Colbert.
An intelligent reader, especially one with a college education, should
be able to detect most bad editing and biased presentation of a written
topic. To check on the accuracy of
Wikipedia entries, try to keep these concepts in mind with vigilant alertness:
- Does the entry use any cognitive biases?
- How frequent are outside references to published works?
- Is the implied narration itself sensible and without favoritism?
- Does the entry accurately summarize both sides of a controversial topic?
- Does the entry itself deal with current politics or famous politicians or modern trends or notable fads or the social “sciences” or personal grooviness? These are topics that invite biased editing, especially by academics who are also ideologues.
See also how a computer grades Wikipedia entries from the August 8, 2014 blog entry of this site.
No comments:
Post a Comment