Thursday
November 20, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 1
Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia
When the online, anyone-can-edit Wikipedia appeared in 2001, teachers, especially college professors, were appalled. The Internet was already an apparently limitless source of nonsense for their students to eagerly consume — now there was a Web site with the appearance of legitimacy and a dead-easy interface that would complete the seduction until all sense of fact, fiction, myth and propaganda blended into a popular culture of pseudointelligence masking the basest ignorance. An Inside Higher Ed article just last year on Wikipedia use in the academy drew a huge and passionate response, much of it negative.
Related stories
- Lessons of a Summer Teaching Online, Nov. 6
- Clicker U., Nov. 3
- High Tech Anxiety, Aug. 14
- Protect Your Privacy, Sept. 21, 2006
- Going Solo, Aug. 24, 2006
Now the English version of Wikipedia has over 2 million articles, and it has been translated into over 250 languages. It has become so massive that you can type virtually any noun into a search engine and the first link will be to a Wikipedia page. After seven years and this exponential growth, Wikipedia can still be edited by anyone at any time. A generation of students was warned away from this information siren, but we know as professors that it is the first place they go to start a research project, look up an unfamiliar term from lecture, or find something disturbing to ask about during the next lecture. In fact, we learned too that Wikipedia is indeed the most convenient repository of information ever invented, and we go there often — if a bit covertly — to get a few questions answered. Its accuracy, at least for science articles, is actually as high as the revered Encyclopedia Britannica, as shown by a test published in the journal Nature.
It is time for the academic world to recognize Wikipedia for what it has become: a global library open to anyone with an Internet connection and a pressing curiosity. The vision of its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has become reality, and the librarians were right: the world has not been the same since. If the Web is the greatest information delivery device ever, and Wikipedia is the largest coherent store of information and ideas, then we as teachers and scholars should have been on this train years ago for the benefit of our students, our professions, and that mystical pool of human knowledge.
What Wikipedia too often lacks is academic authority, or at least the perception of it. Most of its thousands of editors are anonymous, sometimes known only by an IP address or a cryptic username. Every article has a “talk” page for discussions of content, bias, and organization. “Revert” wars can rage out of control as one faction battles another over a few words in an article. Sometimes administrators have to step in and lock a page down until tempers cool and the main protagonists lose interest. The very anonymity of the editors is often the source of the problem: how do we know who has an authoritative grasp of the topic?
That is what academics do best. We can quickly sort out scholarly authority into complex hierarchies with a quick glance at a vita and a sniff at a publication list. We make many mistakes doing this, of course, but at least our debates are supported with citations and a modicum of civility because we are identifiable and we have our reputations to maintain and friends to keep. Maybe this academic culture can be added to the Wild West of Wikipedia to make it more useful for everyone?
I propose that all academics with research specialties, no matter how arcane (and nothing is too obscure for Wikipedia), enroll as identifiable editors of Wikipedia. We then watch over a few wikipages of our choosing, adding to them when appropriate, stepping in to resolve disputes when we know something useful. We can add new articles on topics which should be covered, and argue that others should be removed or combined. This is not to displace anonymous editors, many of whom possess vast amounts of valuable information and innovative ideas, but to add our authority and hard-won knowledge to this growing universal library.
The advantages should be obvious. First, it is another outlet for our scholarship, one that may be more likely to be read than many of our journals. Second, we are directly serving our students by improving the source they go to first for information. Third, by identifying ourselves, we can connect with other scholars and interested parties who stumble across our edits and new articles. Everyone wins.
I have been an open Wikipedia editor now for several months. I have enjoyed it immensely. In my teaching I use a “living syllabus” for each course, which is a kind of academic blog. (For example, see my History of Life course online syllabus.) I connect students through links to outside sources of information. Quite often I refer students to Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced and well written. Wikipages that are not so good are easily fixed with a judicious edit or two, and many pages become more useful with the addition of an image from my collection (all donated to the public domain). Since I am open in my editorial identity, I often get questions from around the world about the topics I find most fascinating. I’ve even made important new connections through my edits to new collaborators and reporters who want more background for a story.
For example, this year I met online a biology professor from Centre College who is interested in the ecology of fish on Great Inagua Island in the Bahamas. He saw my additions and images on that Wikipedia page and had several questions about the island. He invited me to speak at Centre next year about evolution-creation controversies, which is unrelated to the original contact but flowed from our academic conversations. I in turn have been learning much about the island’s living ecology I did not know. I’ve also learned much about the kind of prose that is most effective for a general audience, and I’ve in turn taught some people how to properly reference ideas and information. In short, I’ve expanded my teaching.
Wikipedia as we know it will undoubtedly change in the coming years as all technologies do. By involving ourselves directly and in large numbers now, we can help direct that change into ever more useful ways for our students and the public. This is, after all, our sacred charge as teacher-scholars: to educate when and where we can to the greatest effect.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Exactly!
This is what I’ve thought, for years, should be done. It always seemed to me that those in higher education circles could do so much to improve Wikipedia rather than banning it and complaining about it, a position hard to argue against when Wikipedia invites its improvement by anyone willing.
I’m glad to see that there are some out there who find the idea of improving Wikipedia worthwhile and can put their actions behind their words. Hopefully others will follow.Indeed, one should check out the page “Wikipedia:School and university projects” for examples of projects where classes have been involved in this improvement. It’s certainly not as widespread an idea as it should be.
Nihiltres, at 8:05 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Two comments on Wikipedia
In addition to the lack of attributable authority in Wikipedia articles, there is the problem of instability. Scholarship requires replicability, yet Wikipedia articles, being online and editable, may not be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. Anyone who has cited a web link in a scholarly article knows that this link is not the same as a citation of a published article. I view this instability as a flaw of Wikipedia as a research tool, but certainly not a fatal one.
My second point about Wikipedia is that we should indeed ask our students to use it in their research, but we should give them structured assignments that require them to compare the content and authority of Wikipedia articles with material found in the primary literature. In carrying out such assignments, our students will learn not just the differences, if any, between these resources, but more importantly, the critical skills required to assess these differences. Such an assignment might be given periodically throughout the students’ course of study, and the results would make a nice addition to their portfolios illustrating growth in critical thinking.
George Allen, Michigan State University, at 8:55 am EDT on April 1, 2008
wikipedia and assignments
I would add that that not only should we create assignments that ask students to compare what they find on wikipedia with other sources (certainly a valid assignment), but also create assignments that require other sources; that is, assignments that can’t be answered by recourse to wikipedia’s one-stop shopping/research. Of course, it’s the same issue that’s been around “forever” with traditional encyclopedias. But too many assignments turn into information dumps without any sense of focus, claim, analysis, or synthesis.
podsnap, at 9:25 am EDT on April 1, 2008
This is a great idea. It’s also worth mentioning that the anonymous editors of Wikipedia pages tend to be overjoyed when an actual expert shows up, so one’s efforts are likely to be rewarded with gratitude along with everything else.
Robin J. Sowards, Asst. Prof. of English at Hobart & Wm. Smith Colleges, at 9:25 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Instability
Just a note — Wikipedia is actually one of the best tools re: stability, since all changes are tracked and all historical pages are preserved. Thus, a page citation with Date and Time assures that one can return to exactly the page quoted.
Replicability in research? well, within the “social sciences” I see that as an impossibility, but that’s a fight for another day.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 9:25 am EDT on April 1, 2008
April Fool !?
Maybe I’m being taken in by an April Fools’ joke, but I’ll go ahead and play the straight man …
Wikipedia is irresponsible journalism and irresponsible scholarship
It begins with Wikipedia “editors” giving false names. It continues with influence peddling, organized plagiarism, and the stubborn persistence of false information. It ends with Wikipedia “administrators” bearing false witness against those who criticize it.
People who enter the Wikipedia compound and persist in asking the kinds of questions that responsible journalists and responsible scholars are just bound to ask — they will find that their days in good favor are numbered, unless, of course they stop asking those questions and just “assume good faith".
If professional journalists and scholars don’t start doing their jobs, and this means doing a whole lot more than duping Wikipediot articles of faith and recycling Wikipediot PR, then Wiki-Pundits will soon be putting them out of those jobs.
So watch out for that …
Jon Awbrey, at 9:25 am EDT on April 1, 2008
WIKIPEDIA as a tool — This post is Spot on!
Absolutely. Wikipedia is a tool. It actually, if used correctly, drives students to think about accuracy on the rich resources of the Web — plus it allows students who want to participate to correct errors. Could that ever be done in a library with outdated books?
Jonathan Brown, President at AICCU, at 10:00 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Go for it!
I say that all these professors with the scales on their eyes, thinking Wikipedia is something they should participate in (rather than reject) — they should GO FOR IT!
Have fun spending your valuable time “improving” the encyclopedia “anyone” can edit. With enough time (I’d guess about 12 months for most participants who have any self-respect whatsoever), you’ll come around to the conclusion that the rest of us have — that Wikipedia is no place to spend your time if you have any self-respect.
I won’t get into the gory details of why you’ll change your tunes. They’re all laid out fairly well at WikipediaReview.com. Have fun, professors!
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 10:05 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Anger and accountability
Awbrey and Kohs certainly seem angry and jointly committed to their stand, but I think those frightened or un-nerved by this kind of phenomena first ignore basic economic theories (such as Nash’s equilibrium) and the components of game theory which tend to suggest that the more used Wikipedia is, the more accurate it becomes. In fact, the Science article showed that most errors occurred in the least viewed Wikipedia articles. They also seem willfully ignorant of the nonsense which drives/controls the traditional publishing industry. Always remember that the world’s biggest publisher of textbooks is the very same company which assured you that “Margaret B. Jones” was a real street gangster.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 10:45 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Be Careful What You Wiki For
The notes of optimism about Wikipedia that I read above are typical of newbie-weds in their honeymoon period, but I do encourage experimental educators everywhere to gather their rosebuds and thorns of experience where they may.
But a cautionary note is due here. Experiment — and do as you will with your own reputation, but check with your Human Subjects Committee before you send your students out into a Wikipedia field experience under their own names. Some of you, I’m guessing, may still live in a world where accountability is not a banned concept.
Jon Awbrey, at 10:55 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Wikipedia alternatives
For those who would like a bit more article stability and recognition of scholarly credentials I suggest Citizendum as an alternative. Citizendum was started by one of the Wikipedia founders to address some of the perceived issues of revision wars and anonymous posting raised in this discussion. They do this by combining open content creation with editorship by experts. From the homepage http://en.citizendium.org/ :
* We aim at credibility, not just quantity. * Open to public participation—gently guided by experts. (What a concept!) * We write under our real names and are both collegial and congenial. * We’re 5,800 articles (plus!) strong.* Eduzendium participants write for academic credit.
Brian Fisher, Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University, at 11:15 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Nature study
Dear Professor Wilson,
You’re entirely welcome to your affection for Wikipedia, but please do make some attempt to get your facts straight. The Nature article you cite, which was a relatively undisguised attempt simply to promote Wikipedia rather than a legitimate piece of research, did not claim that Wikipedia’s science accuracy was “as high” as Britannica’s, as you report here. It did say that they were close in accuracy, though in fact the study’s “findings” were compeletely false.
You can look here for a partial catalog of the mistakes nature made and the methodological blunders you should be prepared to defend if you want to cite the study as legitimate:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Other relevant pieces:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/colu...r/2006-03-30-nature-britannica_x.htm
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/britannicas_ind.php
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006...3/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Disclosure: Nicholas Carr is today a member of Britannica’s editorial board, though he was not at the time he wrote the above post.
Tom Panelas, Encyclopaedia Britannica, at 11:35 am EDT on April 1, 2008
Can’t be angry at something so comical
I wonder how Socol and Wilson would address the following issue — by recommending professors participate more in Wikipedia’s process, they are also recommending participation in an organization that:
(1) Has a co-founder named Jimmy Wales who has gone on a single-minded campaign to have himself redefined by the project and by the media as sole founder.
(2) Has had to reject expense reimbursement claims from that “sole founder” for a Moscow massage parlor, for $200-$300 bottles of wine, for a $1200 dinner for 4 (resubmitted expense form AGAIN, with the gratuity crossed out, thinking that would make things more palatable).
(3) Has a “sole founder” who hired a known academic fraud named Ryan Jordan to his for-profit company, then within 5 weeks’ time also tried to install this same young man to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, then months later tried to revise history by saying the Committee itself asked him to install Jordan on the Committee.
(4) Has a “sole founder” who signed IRS Form 990 for the Foundation, without pointing out that the fact that 60% of the Board of Trustees worked for Wikia, Inc. did indeed constitute a “business relationship” existed between Board members.
(5) Has an administrator named Guy Chapman who “touched up” (that would be “deleted") a credible reference citation about Rachel Marsden in her biographical article on Wikipedia, mere days before the “sole founder” went to engage romantically for 24 hours with Marsden in a Washington hotel room.
(6) Hired a multi-count felon from a temp agency to be the Foundation’s Chief Operating Officer.
(7) Has an Executive Director who, despite the six facts above, told CNET that “Jimmy has never done anything wrong.”
If you want to get all sophisticated with your “Nash equilibriums” and your “Nature” study (that has been widely criticized); and you want to ignore the University of Minnesota study (http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chanc...ews_31#The_Unbreakable_Wikipedia.3F) that shows quite clearly that “damaged views” of Wikipedia pages are on the increase, not decrease; and you want to jump at the chance to participate in this system... as I said above, you “GO FOR IT!”
Just please report back to us at the end of 2009 how you felt your partipatory exercise turned out.
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 11:45 am EDT on April 1, 2008
How is the Co-Founder Relevant to the Research Users Produce?
“Has a co-founder named Jimmy Wales who has gone on a single-minded campaign to have himself redefined by the project and by the media as sole founder.”
I fail to see what Professor Kohs is on about in attacking the co-founder of Wikipedia. Personally, i have never heard of Jimmy Wales and don’t care about the expenses he incurred in Moscow. Users are the ones who create the content of wikipedia, and there is certainly plenty of useful and perfectly “legitimate” content out there. Would I trust Wikipedia with my scholarly reputation? No, I would probably do my own additional research to make sure of my facts. But it’s a good place to start, an interesting place to learn about how people collaborate on-line, and there are things I have learned on Wikipedia which are not available anywhere else.
These may be “speculations” or “rumors” that people post, but they have interesting and in fact groundbreaking possibilities in certain cases. The co-founder of Wikipedia does not affect the depth of research or its limitations.
Student, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Not sure
Mr. Kohs,
I’m not sure how certain people have offended you. Obviously they have, and just as obviously, I’m not particularly interested in personal slights. I am interested in how humans (including students) use the tools of the age in which they live in. I do not take anything as “gospel truth.” That doesn’t matter whether it is on a public Wiki page, on Inside Higher Ed’s website, in an encyclopedia written by folks with all the right initials after their names (the one mentioned above is full of things I find “wrong” or wildly biased), or in academic journals.
I look at information sources and I work with them, and that is what I hope students learn to do as well. To read, to doubt, to challenge, to verify.
Yes, there are things wrong in Wikipedia articles and I do not particularly like their management. I do not like the management of the Wall Street Journal either. There are things which are not true printed in The New York Times. As I mentioned above, textbook giant Pearson certainly has its credibility issues.
If you are hoping to establish that there is “one true source” for information, I think your effort is misguided. If you are attempting to stop people from using Wikipedia, good luck. My effort is different, my effort is to help create good researchers and good consumers of information. So I will teach the uses of Wikipedia, The New York Times, even the Wall Street Journal, and any other source likely to be encountered as people look for the data they need.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
and to add
First, let me quote the University of Minnesota study mentioned by Mr. Kohs — an article that is a fascinating look at Wikipedia, “vandalism,” and “repair.” “Wikipedia matters. It is widely used and immensely influential in contemporary discourse. It is the definitive exemplar of collective action on the Web, producing a large, successful resource of great value.”
One of the issues is “damaged page views” and I just want to compare: In 2006 The New York Times printed a front page story about Airbus’s plans for an A380 with stand-up seats. Front page in print. Front page on-line. It was completely false. How many “damaged page views"? In 2008 that same newspaper published not one but two stories covering a book purportedly written by an ex-LA gang member. These were also false. Again, how many damaged page views? The Minnesota article placed the typical damaged Wiki page as being available for 2.8 minutes. These Times stories lasted substantially longer than that before being retracted and corrected.
That said, few in education would refuse to allow students to use The New York Times or its archives as one of their sources. And I hope that few would accept a New York Times article as an only source.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 1:15 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Source For The Goose, Source For The Gander
Since all right-and-left-thinking people agree on the use of multiple sources, and since I cannot possibly encapsulate the years of experience that many diverse thinkers known to me have had with Wikipedia, I will simply pass on a link to The Wikipedia Review, where the comparing and contrasting of experiences with Wikipedia is the daily biz, and where all of these assertions and counter-assertions can be examined in excruciating detail.
Jon Awbrey, at 3:20 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Once again...
To repeat, as I said above, you “GO FOR IT!”
Just please report back to us at the end of 2009 how you felt your participatory exercise turned out.
A fish rots from the head down. Participate and learn firsthand this truism.
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 4:00 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
This founder’s vision has not become reality
The piece says, “The vision of its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has become reality...”
I’m Larry Sanger, and this is false. Please do not use my name to encourage professors to get involved in Wikipedia. My vision has always been for a maximally reliable information resource—not one that is controlled by faceless, often hostile, often irresponsible people, many of them teenagers and college students.
Over the years there have been repeated calls to professors to get involved and improve Wikipedia. Few have heeded the call, and those who have have come back pretty consistently saying, “This place is nuts.” Indeed, long ago—in 2002—I seriously considered starting up a Wikipedia “Sifter” project (you can still read about this in archives) in which experts would approve Wikipedia articles. At the time I was told by some of the more active Wikipedians, essentially: “Don’t expect those alleged experts to get any special treatment from us. They’re no better than the rest of us, and they shouldn’t get all uppity and act like they are!” It then became clear to me that Wikipedia simply had no place for experts. I could not in good conscience recommend that any serious knowledge professional participate in Wikipedia. I still cannot.
Inside Higher Ed and this columnist would do better to acquaint themselves with a project that actually gives college professors, and other experts, a modest but real stake in guidance of content decisions and management of content policy: the Citizendium. I can’t fault the author for not mentioning us, as we are new and, with only 5,800 articles, still unproven. But a positive passing mention would help to create a better alternative to Wikipedia. Please spread the word.
Sign up here. It’s a good time to sign up; tomorrow is our monthly Write-a-Thon, which is always very lively!
Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief at Citizendium, at 4:00 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Exactly
After reading all the comments and reloading the post, I saw Larry Sanger’s comment. Based on that I’d like to propose that Insidehighered host a point/counterpoint article involving Sanger, Ira Socol, Jon Awbrey, and Gregory Kohs on the virtues and vices of Citizendium. If the latter is the place to go (as has been asserted for about 1.5 years now), then let’s vet the process there as opposed to what goes on at Wikipedia. If Citizendium proves better, well, we’ll just have to live with it’s introductory inaccuracies until Citizendium proves the more expansive and accurate medium of information. And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is by signing up as a Citi-editor for topics like the great books idea, Mortimer Adler, Robert Hutchins, etc. — TL
Tim Lacy, at 4:10 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
This Is An April Fool’s Joke, Right?
Like many others, I suspect this is an April Fool’s Joke.
As an occasional columnist, I’ve written much about what’s problematic with Wikipedia, here’s a sampling:
“Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa’s workshop”
Wikipedia’s school for scandal has plenty more secrets to reveal
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive
Seth Finkelstein, at 5:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
competing complainers
I think most of us who use or allow use of wikipedia know enough to treat it like any other encyclopedia, a good place for students to get some general knowledge about a topic. I’ve students post work there are part of their projects. I’m not sure what this has to do with human subjects and research, but I’m sure someone can enlighten me.
What I find interesting about part of this conversation is one of the loudest critics is the founder of a wiki that solicits material rejected by wikipedia. If wikipedia is such a scourge, the material so bad only those with scales over their eyes can appreciate it, what does that say about a site that exists to publish the rejects?
bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 7:20 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Why NOT to embrace Wikipedia
Hmm, the hyperlinks in my comment above didn’t work. Let’s try this again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipediaInside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa’s workshop
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technol...08/mar/27/wikipedia.scandalWikipedia’s school for scandal has plenty more secrets to reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.commentOh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive
Seth Finkelstein, at 8:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Bradley Bleck, I assume you’re talking about moi and Citizendium. We do not specifically (to my knowledge) “solicit material rejected by Wikipedia.” We remain open to it, if it’s any good, but we don’t necessarily reject it. But, of course, it is utterly absurd to say that we “exist to publish the rejects.” If you actually look at http://www.citizendium.org/ you’ll see that we have a lot of fine content, and far meatier and higher-quality than Wikipedia had after a similar amount of time.
To be sure, when it comes to deciding what to accept or not, we do not take our cues from Wikipedia, and there’s an excellent chance that we will be more “inclusionist” than Wikipedia, at least if I have anything to say about the matter. We do not have an absurd “requests for deletion” system in which faceless judges sit in judgment of the “notability” of everyone and everything.
Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief at Citizendium, at 8:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Content, Conduct, Culture
I have said roughly the same things many times before, but in view of the intervening comments on this topic I think that they may bear repeating.
What are the effects of the Wikipedia enviroment on the critical thinking, information literacy, and research skills of its participants?
Too much commentary on what students learn from Wikipedia stops with the content of articles and fails to examine what students learn from participating in the culture of Wikipedia.
Educators know that education is as much about process as it is about product. They understand that students “learn by doing”, by taking part in communities of practice.
What do students learn by playing the Wikipedia online game? Answers to that question can be gleaned from those who have participated in the full range of Wikipedia activities and seen how it really operates beneath the surface. Those who wish to learn more, while escaping the troubles of personal participation, may sample the narratives and the earnest efforts at occasional critical reflection that one finds at The Wikipedia Review:
The effects of using Wikipedia as a source of information is a research question.
The effects of participating more broadly in Wikipedian activities, from the editing game to the policy-making game, is another research question.
Even a bad source of information and a bad guide to the norms of research methodology can serve an educational purpose — if the user is capable of reflecting on its deficiencies.
Whether Wikipedia helps or hinders the user in gaining that capacity is yet another research question.
Educators are aware that learners have many different paths to knowledge. Among the most obvious are these:
1. Learning by being told. 2. Learning by doing things for oneself.3. Learning by watching what others do.
What do people learn from participating in the full range of activities provided by the Wikipedia website, considered with regard to each of these modes?
Some of the questions that educational researchers would naturally think to ask about the Wikipedia experience are these:
a. What do people learn about the ethical norms of journalism, research, and scholarship?
b. What do people learn about the intellectual norms of journalism, research, and scholarship?
For example, here are a couple of research questions that one might think to ask:
1-b. What do students learn about the relative values of primary and secondary sources from reading the relevant policy pages in Wikipedia?
3-a. What do students learn about plagiarism from watching what others do in Wikipedia?
The habits, good or ill, that students acquire from participation in the culture of Wikipedia are likely to be far more life-altering than the bits of information, good or bad, that they pick up from perusing its pages.
Jon Awbrey, at 9:30 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Why NOT to embrace Wikipedia — articles
[Argh, third time] Hmm, the hyperlinks in my comment above didn’t work. Let’s try this again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia
Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa’s workshop
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/27/wikipedia.scandal
Wikipedia’s school for scandal has plenty more secrets to reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive
Seth Finkelstein, at 9:40 pm EDT on April 1, 2008
Response to Bradley Bleck
Larry, I suppose that Mr. Bleck was talking about my site (MyWikiBiz.com) copying the “rejected” Wikipedia material, not your Citizendium site.
Note, Bleck crafted the sentence, “I’ve students post work there are part of their projects,” so I’m not certain he’s actually a teacher or professor or just types English as a second language. But, I digress...
MyWikiBiz does indeed request to retrieve SOME deleted articles from Wikipedia so that they may be copied to MyWikiBiz. Here’s the rub. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. MyWikiBiz claims to be a directory of people and businesses, regardless of notability, and with the feature that the person or business owner can protect their listing/article from the ravages of community vandalism.
It’s a big structural difference from Wikipedia, and it’s one that in many people’s opinion is far better for a directory. Imagine a Yellow Pages where your competitor could change your phone number listing to ring the White House. That’s Wikipedia, were it to be a directory. That’s not MyWikiBiz.
We don’t compete with Wikipedia, which is a multi-player blog with ambitions to be an encyclopedia, yet hides behind Section 230 protection which dictates that it remain an interactive computer service, not a publication. We also don’t compete with Citizendium, which I think has the right idea about how to become a reputable, accountable, published free encyclopedia that anyone who’s willing to stand behind their research can edit. It’s a wonder to me how Citizendium still has so few articles. If they had a financial incentive of some sort, I’d participate there more — but I have a 265-million-page directory to build.
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 5:10 am EDT on April 2, 2008
Wikipedia
I hold masters’ and doctoral degrees from Stanford, and was — initially — deeply skeptical about Wikipedia and its start-up amateurishness and unreliability. No longer.
In my own scholarly work, I now regularly begin with Wikipedia if exploring a field largely unfamiliar to me. From there, I gain an awareness of the public perception and conventional knowledge associated with a theme. I am often astounded by the quality of work available therein.
Wikipedia, for all of its silly internecine quarrels (ever attended a faculty meeting?), is proving to be an unmatched global resource. For anyone still feeling snooty about it, one recommendation: try it. You’ll be back.
Charles barber, Dr at City Opera vancouver, at 5:10 am EDT on April 2, 2008
I have had a good experience with wikipedia this semester
I’m a college professor, and have been coordinating a project on Wikipedia this semester. Indeed, this project is still ongoing. There have of course been snafus and difficulties at times, but overall my experience has been remarkably positive, and I would recommend it to others.
You can find more information at “Murder, Madness, and Mayhem", and an essay I wrote about the process is “Madness".
Jon, at 5:10 am EDT on April 2, 2008
wiki-oogle
Several years ago when I first returned to pursue my undergraduate degree, most online research discussion focused negatively on using Google, discerning credible sources, and so forth; that discussion remains but no longer holds the same concern. Over time, the situation has somewhat “policed” itself in that using Google to begin research or to research news bases and specific topics no longer contains the negativity of earlier internet days.The same holds forth for Wikipedia. In its place, for many students, Wikipedia provides a friendly first step into the daunting world of research. My experience with students is that going ahead and searching Wikipedia before doling out an assignment and then encouraging students to begin there before accessing the university library database meets them more than halfway when it comes to projects. I’m glad to read this article and share it with my colleagues.
EricH, at 9:30 am EDT on April 2, 2008
The wonder of Wikipedia
I’m not saying Wikipedia is not a fascinating, useful, fun, enjoyable site on the Internet. That, it is. What it is not is an appropriate place for a self-respecting academic to dedicate their time, intelligence, and sweat — not when it’s managed legally by proven deceivers and liars, and not when it’s controlled editorially by vindictive, anonymous, uncredentialed administrators who have no business editing an encyclopedia.
I guess those with their PhD degrees and faculty status who WOULD still choose to blindly participate in that project, without attempting to work toward systemic changes and management improvements first, and without first trying an environment like Citizendium, are simply lacking in the level of self-respect that would otherwise steer them away from such a flawed environment.
So, if the only way you’ll learn is by participating more and more, up until the point where something you care about is trounced by an anonymous teenage admin — and he “wins” and you “lose” (via frustration, block, or ban) — once again, I say, “GO FOR IT!” Just report back to us at the end of 2009 your findings from your participatory exercise.
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 9:45 am EDT on April 2, 2008
I have had a good experience with wikipedia this semester
[Unfortunately, the links didn’t come through last time...]
I’m a college professor, and have been coordinating a project on Wikipedia this semester. Indeed, this project is still ongoing. There have of course been snafus and difficulties at times, but overall my experience has been remarkably positive, and I would recommend it to others.
You can find more information at “Murder, Madness, and Mayhem", and in an essay I wrote about the process entitled “Madness":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ikiProject_Murder_Madness_and_Mayhem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbmurray/Madness
Jon, at 1:55 pm EDT on April 2, 2008
As a graduate student, I find wikipedia to be far too unreliable for legitimate research. It is not, however, a terrible jumping off point. While the information in the actual entries is usually incomplete, and often mediocre in its interpretations, at the bottom of the page is a list of citations. If I am truly interested in a subject, I often visit wikipedia and use the citations page as a partial bibliography. In this sense, it can be useful.
Doug, at 4:25 pm EDT on April 2, 2008
Wikipedia
In the comments on this article I see a clear dichotomy between users and contributors. The former are enthusiastic and the latter (except those still on honeymoon) are bitter and disappointed.
Paul ES Wormer, dr at Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands, at 9:35 pm EDT on April 2, 2008
Then Sow Your Oats
The foundation of this article cannot be anything other than idealistic naiveté, certainly not anything born of much experience with Wikipedia.
Its proposal is, in fact, old, and has already been tried many times by academicians and other experts.
See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,709.msg5650.html#msg5650 for more.
Stephen Ewen, Palm Beach Community College, at 12:25 pm EDT on April 3, 2008
On Going Native
People who merely graze the surface of the Internet Culture tend to underestimate the addictive forces that interactive social media exert on malleable minds.
And people who dip in and out of Wikipedia Culture on a casual basis can scarcely know the risks of induced conversion experiences that habitual users face.
You would not send undergraduate anthropology students off on a field study in a religious cult without adequate preparation, if at all, and even then experienced researchers know the dangers of “going native” in such a setting.
Are you really sure that Wikipedia is all that different?
Are you really, really sure?
Jon Awbrey, at 5:15 pm EDT on April 3, 2008
Tim Lacy’s Suggestion
Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and, I’m told, Ben Kovitz, had a great notion of taking the increasingly moribund Nupedia project and making it go viral in the medium of the prior artifice supplied by the wiki software paradigm.
So far, so good. Well, perhaps the word “viral” — that some people think is a good thing — should have been a clue, but I guess mere mortals see only so far.
Larry Sanger deserves credit for seeing that the resultant system was going off course from what he took to be its intended mission, and he deserves credit for trying various ways to fix it. Others have chosen to deny the very possibility of error, much less understanding the uses of feedback. I encourage people to keep tracking the diffs between the objectives and the actualities and to keep exploring the space of possible designs.
The sort of dialogue that educators and the public should be having about these issues cannot be reduced to a point-counterpoint debate, however. The questions are complex and require extended discussion. There have been many dead-ends and there will be many back-tracks before we can see our way clear throught the current morass.
In my experience, Wikipedia and Citizendium are too much alike in lacking strong traditions of internal criticism, indeed, the hostility of their “true believers” to critical reflection on their tenets of faith. And so we must look elsewhere to find truly open dialogues on all of the most compelling and fundamental issues.
That is one of the missions of The Wikipedia Review, and so I will close here by inviting further discussion there. http://wikipediareview.com/
Jon Awbrey, at 11:40 am EDT on April 6, 2008
Start your own encyclopedia
*Nothing* in WP can be trusted, and trying to improve it is completely futile. If the author wants a site about fish, he should start his own version of WP using their free software (MediaWiki) or similar. He can encourage his friends to link to it or contribute to it. And, that way, visitors will know who they’re dealing with and can judge the accuracy based on who’s supplying it.
For a tangible example of why nothing in WP can be trusted, see if you spot any problems with this page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site
If you’re stumped, see this:
http://wikipediabias.com/world-heritage-site
WikipediaBiasDotCom, at 6:05 pm EDT on April 7, 2008
A critical look at that Nature study
The Nature study cited here, which purports to show a similarity in quality between Wikipedia and Britannica, was deeply flawed, as I documented here:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php
Nick Carr, at 9:00 am EDT on April 9, 2008
Award-winning physicist mocked by Wikipediot
Anyone who has read this far in the Comments owes it to themselves to read what award-winning physicist Dr. John Harnad had to say about his recent block from Wikipedia by an undergraduate student:
Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their derisory remarks and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! “Administrators” with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain special powers through a questionable process of scrutiny within this self-referential setting. The latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating and derisory remarks like “...a new account. Possibly suspicious.” that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of “Wikipedia usage” and “good practice", and to overtly express their hostility to anything that might be viewed as “expert knowledge". Users hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms casting aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content. The same users reorganizing the material in arbitrary tendentious ways, to suit their tastes, deleting legitimate contributions, hiding them in boxes, transferring them to other pages, and reordering so as to lose all logic or sense in the sequence of contributions and edits; in short, creating an anarchic circus, all within view of these “Administrators", who do nothing to intervene. Is this science fiction, fantasy, an “other-world” nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all the threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a small number of Wikipedia “insiders” act out fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by threats, intimidation, and manipulative tactics, while administrators who believe that “expertise” is irrelevant, do nothing to intervene? Is it that only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance in this environment? I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the questionably empowered class of “Administrators” turns out to be the only real decision makers, wielding the power to overrule all others, then all depends on them. If they choose to ignore the advice of those who are best placed to provide expert opinion on the substance of the article in question, and decide simply according to their own notions, even though they have no knowledge, but prefer to heed the “all-inclusive” principle, or the views of other users who are equally ignorant of the subject, the outcome is meaningless, and the implication for the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge is clear. Having said this, I expect to receive a barrage of attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. from those seasoned “insiders” who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. But are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance? I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange setting, that claims to represent “the masses” and knowledge simultaneously. R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Gregory Kohs, Founder at MyWikiBiz.com, at 9:00 am EDT on April 14, 2008
Wikipedia has a surprising amount of information in it. I use it frequently to get general information about various topics that I know little about. If professional educators would get involved, it would only help the public such as myself with higher quality.
Greg Turner, Classmate of Mark Wilson at Wooster won’t say what year!, at 4:50 pm EDT on April 19, 2008
No they should not — try posting this article on a day other than April Fool’s please. I’ve read many bad stuffs about people with money trying to control what goes up & what doesn’t so they can feed others in wall street with wrong information, etc. Also remember the secret mailing lists. Some of the admins are really cocky & rude — the culture there is arrogant & cynical & showy (too many thank you, too many incomprehensible terminologies like “please see WP:asdfsdf"). And ultra-nationalists (probably mentally unstable teens & high schoolers w/ many problems) get their way in whitewashing history, etc.
Chunbum Park, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 21, 2008
Wikipedia
I have found Wikipedia to be very useful when it comes to updating lecture material for introductory courses in my field. It allows me to update charts and information from textbooks that may be a year or two old quite easily.
Another thing I have tried is to offer students the opportunity to write an entry for Wikipedia that fills in a blank space (one of the “red” terms in an entry) or expands something Wikipedia has labeled as a “stub.” Unfortunately, no students have yet taken me up on the offer. The idea would be that they would do “paper” research (in books and articles) as well as other internet research to pull the piece together and that I would review an approve it before posting. Why not let the world see your work rather than just one professor?
CWG, Professor at Cal Poly Pomona, at 7:55 pm EDT on May 27, 2008
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia
or search for jobs directly.
Associate Program Chair
Johns Hopkins University
Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC is seeking an Associate Program Chair to supervise and teach in the online portion ... see job
Department Head and Professor
Mississippi State University
Department Head and Professor for Instructional Systems & Technology see job
Instructional Designer (UL251)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Instructional Technologist
Morton College
Job Summary: The Instructional Technologist will support faculty in the effective use of technology in teaching and learning. ... see job
Director of Instructional Design
Lewis University
Lewis University, sponsored by the De La Salle Christian Brothers, is located 25 miles SW of Chicago in one of the fastest ... see job
Temporary Audio-Video Specialist
Monterey Institute of International Studies
MONTEREY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES JOB OPPORTUNITY Temporary Audio-Video Specialist Category: Information Technology ... see job
Assistant Producer Director
University of California, Los Angeles
Under the supervision of the Manager, the Principal Producer-Director and Producer-Directors, assists in the design, ... see job
Director, Nontraditional PharmD Program
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Ninth and Colorado
Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver School of Pharmacy Director, Nontraditional PharmD ... see job
Web Designer/Developer
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Distance Education Coordinator
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
The Distance Education Coordinator will be responsible for (1) supporting and assisting schools and units throughout the ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Exactly
Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia — a somewhat “antiquated” form certainly — but it is the world’s best encyclopedia — most all encompassing and surely no less accurate than any print encyclopedia I have ever seen. And there are important ways to use it in academia. First, to teach the limits of any encyclopedia or any “single source” research claim. Second, to teach the ways to observe the discussion pages and the history pages... something print encyclopedias simply cannot offer. Third, checking on even anonymous editors — what else have they written? Where do they come from? Academics put their trust in letters after a name and publishing companies, but perhaps we should know better. Fourth, yes, editing ourselves. You might start by asking students to check and edit at least part of the entry on their home town, for example, or their own university. For more advanced students you might ask them to join work groups trying to improve certain sections. And you ought to encourage them to log in under their real names — training them to be responsible for their on-line actions.
Collective Intelligence is a vital part of our future, not the threat too many current academics perceive it to be. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, open publishing of research, all contribute to the ever evolving global conversation. If you are actually interested in education, rather than privilege maintenance, you’ll join this world of communal cognition, instead of fighting it.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 7:50 am EDT on April 1, 2008