Wikipedia is a siren. It lures a poor mortal in with the promise of information and catches them with endlessly interconnected articles consuming any productivity into an infinite circular quest (can you tell I have been playing Dragon Age much?). Fancy metaphor aside Wikipedia is a very interesting source of information that has never existed in history. Before only experts in the field can provide overview information on their own given topic. Without knowing one of these experts the information was inaccessible. This has now changed. Anyone and everyone can view, comment, add, subtract, or alter the database of information. It is a true collective of the knowledge of the people.
When starting a new research project, especially one that I am not familiar with, I find I am often at a loss. Vocabulary is the largest issue. I do not know the terms used in the field, who wrote what or when. For this reason Wikipedia is my near exclusive starting point for research. It scaffolds the basic structure of the topic or builds upon what has been discussed in class. Referenced works is also very critical as it can help point me where to look next for further research.
Research papers are considered the only valid source of information at the collage level. These papers are highly specific, and the language is difficult to access for many students. Its accuracy is equivalent to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I find it difficult to develop a sufficient argument on why I should not accept it as a resource. This is not without caveats.
While the articles are just as important the Talk and History sections are very important. Unlike any other source of knowledge the history of the editing process is visible to all. Science education fell short for many, many people in teaching them how to evaluate knowledge claims. This is critical for everyone to learn with the information density we are living in now. If students wish to cite Wikipedia they can, but they will also demonstrate in their research the context and history of the information they cited.
In my humble opinion a Wikipedia article is more reliable than a random webpage. Forever self correcting the probability that it will contain too much bias or inaccuracies remains low. A standard web page is static. It only updates when someone with access to the site updates it. A great deal of analysis is needed to determine the validity of a site. Wikipedia articles are flagged by users if they feel there are issues.
At this time my classroom policy will be simple. For any source cited students will need to provide a few sentences for each site/book/fortune teller why it is an acceptable source and what problems exist with it. Or I can just not assign research papers.
I'm kidding.
David, good idea I think we should do away with research papers, or at least the kind that I had to do in high school. I honestly can not remember a single thing that I wrote about or “researched” from that time except that Hernando Cortez is a military genius. I agree with you about Wikipedia. I am fine with students sighting it as long as it is done in good context and backed up by other references.
ReplyDeleteGood work
Joe Hoffman