Wikipedia is a phenomenal web page. It is packed full of information on anything and anyone you want to know about. I use Wikipedia for a variety of reasons but scholarly research is not one of them. I routinely will jump on Wikipedia to look up information on an athlete, celebrity, or in some cases even a research topic but only to get a broad overview of the person or topic. I have never used Wikipedia for educational purposes, like as a citation in an essay. Furthermore, I have never quoted anything from Wikipedia; although I think Wikipedia is a great web page of general knowledge I do not think it's a credible source for educational research. I have two reasons for not using Wikipedia as a citable source for my research. The first is that I am curious about the content that I read on the website. I am sure that the moajority of the information is correct, I just have a hard time feeling comfortable to use information that does not have an author and information that anyone can potentially change and update. The second reason I don't use Wikipedia for research is because during my undergraduate work my professors strictly prohibited citing Wikipedia and did not view at as a credible source.
When I begin a research project, essay, or paper the first place I usually start to gather information and investigate my topic is the internet. I like to take a top-down perspective on my research. I'll use a large search engine such as Yahoo or Google to gain a better understanding of my topic. From there I will look to books that have been written on the subject and finally I will gain a tremendous amount of my information from scholarly journals that have done some previous research on the research topic.
As a teacher, I don't believe that I will accept work from my students where they have used Wikipedia as one of their cited sources. I am fine is they use the web page as a basis for some information as long as they are cross-checking it with other credible sources. "Although it is difficult to give Wikipedia a blanket endorsement, it can be valuable resource for students and staff alike" (Johnson, 26). After reading the point-counter point article on Wikipedia I completely agree with that quote from Doug Johnson. As a teacher, I want my students to be knowledgable and aware of credible resources and web sites but I also want them to understand that Wikipedia is a great way to gain a broad perspective of a given topic.
This article supports my ideas of Wikipedia and citing it in research because the author understands that just like any other encyclopedia, it should just be used to gain a general understanding of a topic; not conduct full blown research from. "Basic reference sources-whether Wikipedia or World Book should be used to get a general overview of a topic in context, not be used as a sole and final authoritative source" (Johnson, 27). However, this article does provide good points against my stance and for the usage of Wikipedia in research. The article claims that Wikipedia, when compared to other encyclopedias provides nearly the same information and is very reliable when it comes to dates, landmarks, and other events in US history. It goes on to say that even though anyone can post and update a topic on the website, there are warnings and flags that are displayed to a reader verifying that some of the information may not be completely correct. In this case, students should definintely be cross-checking their research.
As far as a policy goes for students and interent research I would first make them aware of plagerism. How there are many avenues for this to happen and that many things on the interent are not credited correctly and may even be plagarized previously. Secondly, my policy will be that internet research used in an essay or project will need to be cited correctly to ensures the rights of the information remain property of the author. I would like my students to be aware of what credible web pages are and how they can find them. Finally, I think making the distinction between .com, .org, .gov, and .edu websites will be important as they move forward into their education where technology is at the forefront of their research.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are right in the thought that we need to let students know that the site can be changed and such. Great job on this post.
ReplyDeleteTy,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points of view. Because Wikipedia didn't come into being until after I finished my undergraduate degree, I never had a chance to use it. Even researching on the internet didn't really happen until my last year of college. It makes sense in a way that one of your professors banned it as a source, but I just don't see that as necessary. As you quoted the article, it is fairly accurate regarding basic dates and events. To me, for that reason alone, I would think it is a somewhat credible source. If the project from my students were to be something opinion oriented, then yes, I can see the need for more information than Wikipedia can provide. Though I differ in my viewpoint slightly, I appreciate your position and gained a better understanding of the risks our students take when relying on one, anonymous internet source.