From: Rights of Parents who Home School
I really like your views, expressions and ideas, Trista. That makes sense about the stat exams and what not as well. I had no idea that was why they… ...
From: Technology Integration and Student Communication
I fully agree with you. I have taught in Masters Degree programs in the field of Education in both the traditional and the online environments. I… ...
From: Can NCLB be fixed? Should It be?
wetz, Interesting article... I wonder what they think students are 'reading'? Sounds odd to me...it is difficult to 'read' and miss out on 'history,… ...
When the internet was new-ish, many instructors were suspicious of it. Students were told to do their research “but don’t use the internet,” and then were in a place of real pain when they got to the library and found out that the only way they could use the library catalogs was by using the internet, because the card catalog had disappeared. I spent the early nineties having conversations with faculty and students about such things as: What is the internet? Can something be on the internet, yet not be the internet? If the internet falls in the woods, where are you hiding the card catalog? We got more sophisticated about what we meant by “don’t use the internet.” It was more a plea for quality than a damnation of a delivery platform.
In 2001, Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) showed up both on the web and in student work, reaching a critical tipping point sometime in 2007, when discussion of its merits really entered the mainstream press (see links at the end of this article for some of that debate.). It became fashionable to critique, vilify, or defend the deceptively simple looking little website that seemed to have an answer for everything. Wikipedia is, in broadest terms, an encyclopedia about everything, written by anyone. There is more to it, but in the end, the issue most have with it is one of authority, reliability, and validity of content and authors of that content. “Don’t use the internet” turned into “Don’t use Wikipedia.” I have to pause here and say that this is the position of many of the instructors at my university, and I respect them all.
But….This is difficult due first to Wikipedia’s ubiquity. Because of way most search engines work, taking Google as a specific example, ranking results based in part on popularity (defined in part by the number of pages linking to a page), nearly any web search turns up links to Wikipedia pages in its first page of results; some students have actually told me that it’s a struggle to find links that are not Wikipedia links! Also, it is difficult to ban the use of Wikipedia because of the non-conformist in us all. Telling anyone not to use anything gives that anything a real glamour and cachet: Students suddenly become militant info-rebels, although some of them may never have even heard of Wikipedia until they were told not to use it, they now just can’t resist.
As a library director, I like to see students use, big surprise, the library, but I’m not losing any sleep trying to lure them back from Wikipedia. I think the judicious use of Wikipedia can actually send students running back to the library: and for me, what’s important is not where research starts: it’s where it ends up. So, why not let them take Wikipedia for a spin? Rather than banning its use, challenge them to some good old critical thinking practice. I advocate a field trip to Wikipedia (I do this in a library class each term) or a little experiential learning in how it works, or perhaps a guided analysis of the content as a group project. Particularly with adult students, experience with the tool will teach them far more about evaluating sources of information than a simple ban, which eliminates completely that teachable moment .
Advocate quality, but be “platform agnostic.” Doing so, with some “hands on, hands held” facilitated experience will help the students make good choices based on their now-engaged brains telling them: “This does not pass the test. There must be something else that will work better.” When students tell me “I searched the web for three hours, but now I’m trying the library,” I don’t despair over those three hours, if that’s what it took: the student is now ready for the good stuff. The good stuff has not disappeared, and students can learn to recognize it—and I’m not too proud or too tired to help them do it, even if it means venturing into Wiki land.
Additional Reading and Food for Thought:
Cohen, N. (2007, February 21). A History Department bans citing Wikipedia as a research source. New York Times. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse&oref=slogin
Dokoupil, T. (2008, March 6). Revenge of the experts. Newsweek. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://www.newsweek.com/id/119091
Dubner, S. (2006, September 1). Another kick in the teeth for Wikipedia. New York Times. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/another-kick-in-the-teeth-for-wikipedia/?scp=19&sq=wikipedia&st=cse
Guess, A. (2007, October 29). When Wikipedia Is the assignment. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/29/wikipedia
Hesse, M. (2008, April 27). Truth: Can you handle it? Washington Post. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042500922.html
Oronte. (2008, September 3). New thinking on Wikipedia: Not evil. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://insidehighered.com/views/blogs/the_education_of_oronte_churm/new_thinking_on_wikipedia_not_evil
Wilson, M. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/04/01/wilson
I also do not let students use wikipedia, if it can be found there great but verify it with a more credible source from the library. Though I don’t mind them starting or looking at wikipedia, they can certainly find better sources to confirm or disprove what they have found. Maybe eventually they will go straight to the library 
I am a student at AIU and I personally feel research for students is vitally important. However the use of Wikipedia isn’t always a good source to use but I think it would at the same time be challenging to see students gather factual information and compare it to Wikipedia to see if the proven facts match. I believe each and every student should strive for proper research when it comes to achieving the work being done that’s required. I’m not sure if I can personally say that Wikipedia should be used or not but after so much research and reading on any one single topic if you use Wikipedia as a last resort you can pretty much tell whether the information there is corresponding to what you’ve already read at the more credible source such as the library or other places. Just like any other encyclopedia Wikipedia isn’t going to go away, so perhaps in the future it could be considered to be used as an educational opportunity. A good question to ask here would be Is Wikipedia becoming a Respectable Academic Resource? Or will it always continue to be debatable and banned from being used as an Academic Resource? Time will tell!
While I was doing my undergraduate work, a lot of my professors did not allow us to use Wikipedia as a source. They would explain to us a little bit about the website, especially how anyone can post anything about a particular topic. Whether you tell your students to use it or not, I think students will use the website as a source for their papers regardless of what they are being told. I know I continued to use Wikipedia, but at the same time I was careful about the type of information provided. I do wonder if Wikipedia will ever change, i.e. stop allowing anyone to post anything and instead, hire those with the knowledge such as professors, historians, etc.
Should we allow the ‘use’ of this website? Of course!
The question is not about using it or not using it.
It is about HOW one uses it, and what it is used for!
1. What is the nature of the study?
Learning content is one thing.
Making a point or argument ‘stick’ is another!
For a graduate student who needs to back up information with citations and expert studies a wiki is not sufficent as a sole ‘source’. It is just too difficult to trace the origin of the information for accountability, validity, and reliability. We want students to question any source, and look for ‘other sides of the story’. We want information that someone feels strongly enough to put a name on, and preferably even be backed by an entire community or institution. We don’t get that if they just go to a few wikis and reword it into a paper.
On the other hand, a wiki can give a good summary or overview of a topic, and give someone a good point to ‘begin brainstorming’ and searching for suitable sources relevant to the study. It can give some insight into what most of the world is going to see, hear, and maybe even ‘feel’ about the topic at hand. While the wiki may not be entirely accurate, you can rest assured that millions of people will see it, accept it, and use it on a daily basis. It is important to consider wiki information in the grand view of study. Sooner or later ‘what the wiki says is going to surface in the way the public percieves a topic. We as scholars have a stake in this perception…like it or not! In fact, some might argue that we should ‘participate’ in helping make sure wikis are correct and up to date. Especially if we catch a ‘serious fault’ in an entry.
Few people cite everything they read on a topic in a report or study. That does not mean it is not wise to read a variety of sources to get a ‘feel’ for a topic before drafting a ‘formal report’. Experts and authorities are sometimes even ‘challenged’ by wikis….I’m not taking sides here, but I do feel it is important to see what people are saying and reading about your topic.
2. What is purpose of the study?
I use it almost daily! People much smarter than I often have no clue about products and services avilable for their needs. They skip the wiki and spend all day on the phone talking to ‘experts’ who are looking at ‘a wiki’ and probably anonymously adding new items to the ‘wiki’ every day. Some of them even ‘gasp’ when I send them a wiki link as a point of ‘inital reference’ to meet an objective.
I.E.
A dear friend of mine is a professional psychologist. She was heading up a study in which she needed a voice over IP server. It needed certain capabilities and legal rights in order for her to use it in her case. I sent her a single wiki link that listed over 200 clients and servers she could look into on a neat table with most of the information she required! “Gasp!” she added, “We were taught to never use a Wiki!”.
Granted this wiki was not sufficient for her needs in and of itself, but it sure gave her a very good roadmap on how to get exactly what she needed in a hurry. The table allowed her to simply make a short list of clients and servers that fit her needs, and then dig deeper to ‘verify’ that the wiki information was correct.
In summary…there is a time and place for any tool. Even rapidly developed wikis. I feel the best approach is to encourage their ‘use’, but to make sure students know there is another step involved if they intend to base graduate level research on this information. You can not ‘cite’ the wiki! It can be worth reading; it can pull you out of a writers/thinkers slump, and it can give you some hints on how to find full articles and reports that you CAN cite’.
So yes…use it…but don’t think one can ‘rely on it’, or use it for ‘every kind of research’ that comes along.
Brian
DrGallagher |Oct. 1, 2008 @ 2:13 PM
I am one of those instructors who does not allow wikipedia as a source in my classroom. However I also do not allow dictionaries, encyclopedia or any other site that tries to provide information on a wide variety of topics. While I feel all of these sources are appropriate in elementary school & sometimes in high school, I teach in a graduate school program and I feel the students in these classes should be beyond wikipedia and such sources and ready to use primary sources, published articles, professional web pages and other higher level sources in their own field when responding to assignments.