![[cupola]](/zsr/img/cupola.jpg)
Hello everyone. This is a surprise extra credit assignment worth two points on your final grade. It is due on Monday, November 12th.
Earlier this semester the Old Gold and Black ran a story on Wikipedia called Wikipedia use ignites academic debate. The article discusses the debates going on at colleges across the country about the usefulness of the site. The article also mentions several things we’ve brought up in class such as the role of encyclopedias in the research process, peer reviewed works as authoritative, and the information timeline.
For two extra credit points, please comment on your impressions of Wikipedia in light of this article, and how it could or could not be useful as a reference source
12 Responses to “Extra Credit: Read and Respond”
Wikipedia has changed the landscape of academic research in a relatively short amount of time. Since 2001, the approach to online resources has been redefined by the advent of this highly controversial website.
Personally, I tend to concur with the Harvard professors, who see Wikipedia as a way in which to encourage academic scholarship. Nonetheless, considering Wikipedia’s ability to be edited by anyone on the internet, this website should not be placed in the league of legitimate research and scholarly sources.
As far as banning the website altogether, like the movement of Middlebury College, I feel there is an easier way to discourage too strong a reliance on this online encyclopedia.
As with all research, I would propose finding a balance: a balance between scholarly sources found on such sights as Jstor and sources of a less legitimate nature, such as Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia in order to grasp an idea of the topic or subject I am researching; nevertheless, I do not utilize specific details from this website because I am aware of its potential to be drastically mistaken. Balance is the foundation to using these sources and materials; one must be wary not to lose his sense of it in light of Wikipedia’s ease and simplicity.
I believe Wikipedia is an invaluable resource because of its broad range of topics from the historical (ex: the revolutionary war) to the mundane (ex: season 4 smallville characters). It is an outlet and a database of human knowledge and a forum for the world to compile and collaborate research.
But I am not naïve enough to not realize the faults of Wikipedia. The idea that academic information can be edited and added by any individual, regardless of their academic background is a scary thought for a generation who so heavily relies on electronic resources. People “vandalize” the sight with incorrect information and add false data. That being said, culture and politics are changing so rapidly that no encyclopedia is going to be perfect. Wikipedia offers an unparallel source to research backgrounds of topics that can help lead you to more specific journal, magazine or newspaper articles. Offering 200 languages, I have also found that subjects that may be part of Spanish culture and history may not have as much information in English but I can find useful information in Spanish. Wikipedia in another aspect of globalization, and a site for knowledge to be shared and exchanged thought the world.
Although the accuracy and validity behind the material on Wikipedia is debatable, the usefulness of Wikipedia seems to not even be a question. As a source of information Wikipedia offers what seems to be an endless amount of material on such a wide range of topics that it makes the site an easy resources for students to turn to. The site is also helpful in the way that it breaks down the general topic into subcategories, an organizational tool that is helpful for students formulating papers on the topic etc.
However since the information on Wikipedia is so open to the public it raises the question of whether or not this aspect of it demeans the authenticity of the material the website contains. I think the article does a nice job of portraying both sides of the debate without showing a biased to which side is right or wrong. This leaves the reader to determining how valuable of a source Wikipedia really is and under what circumstances it should be used.
I find Wikipedia to be a very useful resource for answering any random question that pops into my head whenever I’m sitting at my computer. But as far a conducting real research, I doubt if I’d ever fully trust the site. Whenever I have a paper assigned, my professors recommend that I use Wikipedia for one purpose: formulating ideas. Needless to say, the website is invaluable for narrowing subject material and figuring out a paper topic simply due to the massive amount of articles within the site. That said, I tend to agree with Professor David Coats’ argument that Wikipedia aught not to be taken at face value because many of the articles are not peer-edited, thus anyone with a Master’s or PhD can post something simply due to his or her title. While Wikipedia does work to protect the integrity and accuracy of all material on its site, since literally anyone can edit it, there’s always the chance that incorrect posted material will go unnoticed. This of course could result in people taking false information as fact, which could result in a grade difference on a person’s paper. So as far as a source, I won’t touch Wikipedia, but as far as a useful way to generate ideas, I’m all for it.
I still remember the first time I heard about Wikipedia: I was a sophomore sitting in my Advanced Placement European History class dismayed because I could not find a few of the terms and people we were supposed to identify, and then my friend introduced me to Wikipedia. For the most part, looking up general historical information or people has been the extent of my Wikipedia use, and I think that is a perfectly useful and rational use of the site. Especially if one has a confusing textbook, a clear site like Wikipedia is helpful. I do not use it for say, research for a paper for a college class, but if I have searched for the specific terms in my textbook for one assignment (and they are relatively uncontroversial) I will probably look on Wikipedia for basic information on their pertinence to history. Similarly, I have found the science and math sections of Wikipedia to be extremely helpful this semester since, in general, math and science textbooks do not present material in the clearest way. Thus, if I am stuck on a math problem because the concept is not clearly explained, chances are if I type it in on Wikipedia, there will be a detailed description as well as examples, applications, and possibly visuals to explain the topic. With that being said, I do see the controversy with the site, especially with touchy issues that may or may not have a clearly defined description because they are vulnerable to significant changes based on opinion; but I do not think the site should be banned because it is a way for members of the global community to come together and share information that would otherwise take years to be published and even then only be available to the select few. Instead, now anyone with internet access can learn about a variety of issues that they would otherwise remain uneducated about if Wikipedia did not exist.
I find Wikipedia to be such an incredibly useful resource when doing research, mainly in form of getting general background information. Though the site can be edited and changed at any time, I find that the information is generally correct and is very useful for obtaining enough background information to guide future research or just to get a general idea about a topic. Though I definitely agree with professor’s policies of banning the citation of Wikipedia as a research source, there should definitely not be a ban on using it as background source. Personally, I find Wikipedia useful as a research source, as well as a source of personal questions. It truly has an article on everything, including individual seasons television shows and people that more credible encyclopedias would never list. To put it shortly, I am all for Wikipedia, as long as it used in a sensible way.
Wikipedia is another illustration of how technology spurs globalization. Similarly, to how when Google arrived people would “Google” something if they did not know the answer, now people are turning to Wikipedia for answering basic reference questions. In this sense Wikipedia is a great resource for random pop culture history, or general history, but I would not consider it a legitmate citable source for a college research paper. As students have commented earlier Wikipedia is a good site to gain a general understanding of a broad topic and use the many articles to narrow and develop a specific research question. Many of the articles have links to more legitimate sources that were used by the authors and as a student I would investigate those and possibly use them as works cited. I think professors can ban Wikipedia from being included as a research source, but should encourage students to use it as a basic reference. Students need to be educated about how to analyze information, even our history textbooks do not necessarily portray 100% factual truths because they were written by one point of view and there is always another side to a story. The most important thing in all of this is students and professors continue to engage in a dialog about the benefits and dangers of using Wikipedia.
Although I do believe that Wikipedia is a valuable source when it comes to basic research, I have to argue that the way in which people have been using the information they get from Wikipedia is somewhat startling. Users will read something on the site and blindly assume that what they read is true. Additionally, the ability of account holders to log onto the site and edit whatever page they would like to whenever they want to is an unbelievably beneficial tool - however, some members are using that tool incorrectly. For example, when I was a junior in high school, we had a history project in which we were assigned the identity of a historical person. We were supposed to do research for a debate in which we would take on the role of that person. As a joke, a classmate of mine logged onto Wikipedia and edited all the information about Henry Clay right before another classmate began his research because we figured he’d use Wikipedia. I believe there are thousands of examples like this - maybe not intended to be a practical joke like that one - where people go onto the site and edit pages blindly, adding statistics and random facts. As long as viewers are aware of the potential dangers and filter their research with backup research from other credible sources, Wikipedia is a fine research tool.
I seem to agree with what the article says on two different points. I think Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as an academically enriching source. Professors should not be afraid of a source that seemingly has every piece of knowledge known to man in it. I understand why professors don’t trust the site because it can be edited at anytime, but it is well documented that the site is monitored 24 hours a day and most of the articles are simply taken from other reliable sources.
I also agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a source for research papers or projects. Encyclopedias in general should not be used as sources for those types of assignments. Wikipedia has so much information that some students are using it as their only source, and that is wrong. Wikipedia is a great tool for exploring information, but not a good source for research papers. The two should be kept apart.
I believe wikipedia is a very useful but can prove very ineffective when student rely solely on it for research and projects. I believe that wikipedia can be used for various successful academic pursuit, however, over dependence on wikipedia can be very detrimental to the student because it does not give the research or paper enough depth and evidences.
However, i believe that wikipedia can be used as a starting point for many papers has it helps narrow the topic, making it clearer and easier to work with.
Wikipedia is a valid source if it is used correctly. As a whole, it is great to find general information on a subject quickly and finding links to other resources on a subject. People just have to keep in mind what it is; an encyclopedia that is edited daily. If you are looking to write a thesis on presidential speech of the ’20s, obviously wikipedia is not a source that should hold much weight in your paper. However, for general knowledge, it is an amazing resource for our time.
As far as the computer science professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz who developed software that colors text orange, and the deeper the orange the more reason to believe it is erroneous-I feel like this would be more effective if different colors were used to show different levels of credibility. It would be really hard to distinguish between shades of orange. I’m not sure that I agree with professor Kell’s allowing his students to cite Wikipedia, although I can say that I am for Wikipedia. Just like encyclopedias, most Wikipedia articles site all of their sources at the end of the article, so those references are often a really useful tool for me. Also, Wikipedia is new. The article mentioned that they are starting to protect and semi-protect articles. I’m sure that the longer Wikipedia is around, the more they will improve their methods and their system will eventually become much more supported by the general public.