COMM5 Instructor Manual Chapter 11
11–11
Wikipedia announced that it had barred unregistered users from creating new articles, and
later the site enacted a policy that prevented the public from creating new articles about
living people without editorial review. These moves signaled a change from Wikipedia’s
initial desire to provide a free online encyclopedia that the public could create
collaboratively.
Wikipedia is one of the top ten Web sites used worldwide, offering 2,665,263 articles
covering over 2 million topics. Nonetheless, the Seigenthaler hoax and other incidents have
spurred a “credibility” backlash against the site. For example, U.S courts have begun ruling
that Wikipedia cannot be used as legal evidence—in April 2009, a New Jersey judge
reversed an initial ruling that Wikipedia could be used to plug an evidentiary gap, saying
that because “anyone can edit” the online encyclopedia, it is not a reliable source of
information. In addition, many educators discourage their students from using Wikipedia as
a research tool, and some schools have even banned access to it completely. The site
prompts comments such as “Better to make such a site off-limits to students . . . if it will
get them to rely on more authentic research sources for their writing”. Even Wikipedia
founder Jimmy Wales cautions against relying on the Web site as a primary source: “People
shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in the first place. [Rather,] Wikipedia and other
encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform
your studies for a deeper level”.
But some educators argue that student use of Wikipedia can provide invaluable teaching
moments. Jade Tippett of Ukiah High School suggests, “By showing students how Wikipedia
entries are developed by dynamic consensus, as opposed to ‘authoritative’ sourcing, we can
get to deeper levels of the ‘what is truth’ conversation”. David Geary of the Harris County
Department of Education says that although he hesitates to call Wikipedia “factual,” he
believes that information contributed to Wikipedia is often reflective of a popular cultural
viewpoint. And in English Journal, Darren Crovitz and W. Scott Smoot write, “Talking with
[students] about how the site operates is essential in helping them move from passive
acceptors of information to practicing analyzers and evaluators.”
So, to Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia? A moderate approach advocates using Wikipedia as
a starting point for research rather than a primary source. Here’s a tip: Use the Notes
section at the end of Wikipedia articles to find links to the published sources that support
and inform each article. These sources include books; magazine, newspaper, and journal
articles; original interviews; court decisions; and similar authoritative sources.
Source:
Cohen N. (2009, August 24). Wikipedia to limit changes to articles on people. New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?_r=1; Crovitz,
D., & Smoot, W. S. (2009, January). Wikipedia: Friend, not foe. English Journal, 98(3), 91–
97. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/EnglishJournalArticle2.pdf; Gallagher,
M. P. (2009, April 27). Wikipedia held too malleable to be reliable as evidence. New Jersey
Law Journal. n.p. Retrieved from Infotrac; Helm, B. (2005, December 14). Wikipedia: “A
work in progress.” Business Week. Retrieved from
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm?chan
=db; Seigenthaler J. (2005, November 29). A false Wikipedia “biography.” USA Today.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11–29-wikipedia-
edit_x.htm; Smith, S. (2008). The case for using, but not citing, Wikipedia. Prosecutor,
Journal of the National District Attorneys Association, 42(4), 31. Retrieved from Infotrac;
Wikipedia: Friend or foe? (2009). Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(8), 6. Retrieved
from Infotrac.