Jennie E. Ver Steeg

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