Wikipedia
The online multilingual encyclopedia Wikipedia was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Since its onset, it has become the largest and most popular general reference site on the internet with more than 365 million readers in the world. Although many people remain skeptical and critical of the information sources provided by this online encyclopedia, we must consider some of its positive contributions to this era of the information age and new technologies.
Let us take into account for instance, that Wikipedia provides a unique and universal free interactive setting for all peoples of the world. This can be viewed as one the most sociodemocratic technological efforts of our times.
In a recent publication by The Chronicle the international weekly journal of science, Nature , finds that the accuracy of science articles in Wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Furthermore, Michael Reagle, in his book Good Faith Collaboration published in 2010 explains how a communally created online encyclopedia became the most important reference site in the English language with editions in more than 282 languages. Lessig (2010) argues that Wikipedia “has come to define the very best in an ethic of a different kind of economy or community: at its core, it is a ‘collaborative community.’ He asserts “more than any democracy, it empowers broadly.”
Reagle ( 2010) points out some of the criticisms of the concept of Wikipedia. He notes that its use as a reference may be questionable since everyone, educated or not, can access and edit it. However, he strongly supports this concept since it provides an interactive source of knowledge and information.
In the history of the western world, knowledge has been associated with power, education and social status. Thus, traditionally, only the elites would have access to higher learning and education. Wikipedia changes that paradigm as a platform for shared knowledge, equal participation and dissemination of knowledge. All of its contributions are based on “good faith”. It is about a non- profit, open-source software.
In sum, Wikipedia can be described as one the most revolutionary and democratic technological web-based forums in the 21st century for the dissemination of knowledge.
Good post Aldo...Wikipedia may challenge the established ways we track and access knowledge. But please still do not use it as a citation in a scholarly paper :)
ReplyDeleteUnderstood. We will not use it as a citation in a scholarly paper.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I thought it was a good way of challenging the way (s) people in the "western world" view knowledge.
Perhaps, the next post should pose some of the following questions: What is knowledge? how is that constituted? is knowledge monopolized by the "western world"? what about knowledge in other latitudes of the world?
Aldo, clever way to use wikipedia in a scholarly way in one of Matt's classes. I'm very impressed :)
ReplyDeleteI agree that Wikipedia has expanded the way we access knowledge and has opened up a new way of learning. As graduate students, I understand why this is not considered a viable source for us to use and cite; however, I do see value in younger generation using the encyclopedia. I think it's a good way to get students acquainted with the material before they begin their research and can offer quick answers for students when they don't understand a topic. These same students may have simply dismissed a word or concept if they didn't understand it before, but Wikipedia gives them a quick answer and therefore expands their knowledge base (even though this caters to the want for instant gratification of the upcoming generation). Hopefully these students don't become reliant on Wikipedia for their future education, but I see no harm in encouraging them to learn more about what they're learning.
I must admit I do turn to Wikipedia when I want an answer without looking too hard. Just today i found information on the Amanda Knox trial. It gave me all the information I wanted to know. Whether is is true or not is another story!
ReplyDeleteI think Wikipedia is a good starting point. If you just want some quick general knowledge about a topic, its not a horrible place to start. Although anyone can write on this website, this is not a completely negative thing. It can give students a way to share their knowledge and be apart of a learning community. It encourages students to be active learners, to question what they are reading and to decide what they believe. If they do not agree with the writer, they are able to make changes accordingly! http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7026.pdf
I really resonate with Holly's comment, "it can give students a way to...be a part of the learning community." I would love for more faculty to encourage students to use Wikipedia. It IS a resource that our students use, why not encourage them to think critically about what they read on Wikipedia? When they read something in the newspaper, on a blog, or hear something from a friend/parent/teacher's mouth, I hope they engage with it critically. Wikipedia is a seemingly great place to start.
ReplyDeleteWe want journals we read and write to be "peer reviewed" which begs the question - isn't Wikipedia the most peer reviewed resource out there? I've watched Wikipedia grow over the last decade or so and often wondered, "whose writing these things?" Are professors of history writing articles about the Civil War, or is it internet-hungry 13 year olds? The difficulty of the internet (and media) is that everyone's voice becomes equally valid. This, to me, underscores the need not to teach people the right answer, but to teach them how to think critically.
I will admit, too, that I frequently use Wikipedia. Not for this class, of course! I do however use it for a quick reference point. I use this website if there is a concept I hear that I am not familiar with or if I am looking for a very simple answer and do not want to spend a lot of time searching. For example, I am very busy with two jobs and 13 credits so I rarely get to watch the news. Today I heard that Steve Jobs has passed away. I wanted to know how so I went to Wikipedia to find the answer. This shows another strength of Wikipedia. Steve Jobs passed away yesterday (October 5th) and already today there is updated information on the Steve Jobs Wikipedia page. While a unfortunate example, this website is usually up to date.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, although this should not be considered a legitimate resource for scholarly writing, it does serve as a great beginning place for not only students but faculty and staff too. I like the idea about having Wikipedia be a valuable site for students to learn to think critically and possibly create assignments to conduct online research to determine if Wikipedia has any merit.
Thank you for your post Aldo. Like many others, I also use Wikipedia as a starting point. It provides a general overview and I can can go from there. In fact, I just used it about an hour ago to look up some information needed at a conference I am currently attending.
ReplyDeleteI do understand as a graduate student why we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. The information that has been provided has not been verified and can be edited very easily. However, I think Wikipedia should be given recognition for the changes it has been responsible for in the technology community. I would have never guessed that we would have an international community-oriented encyclopedia. It is a great concept and one that will continue to grow over time.
In our Scholarly Writing class this week we began our discussion of epistemology and theoretical paradigms. I’m going to go out on a limb here and try to respond to this post by applying some of my newfound knowledge (… hesitating to call it that yet... still not fully grasping the concepts there…) to this discussion of Wikipedia. So that is my disclaimer. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way…
ReplyDeleteAs we consider the validity of Wikipedia in a scholarly context, let us also consider our assumptions about reality and truth. If we are of the mindset that a single reality exists, that is—what’s real is what’s real, that is it- end of story, then a resource such as Wikipedia is problematic. If the experts, researchers, or scientists have determined that XYZ is the Truth, then other contributions are useless. Unless something new occurs (i.e. something new happens in time that needs to be documented) there is no need to revisit or add commentary to the truth that is reported.
However, if we are of the belief that multiple realities exist and that these realities are shaped by the experiences and perspectives of individuals, a dynamic and collaborative resource such as Wikipedia may in fact be quite appropriate. In fact, from a constructivist epistemological perspective, aren’t many of our ‘traditional’ sources of information, such as encyclopedias, quite limited, as they tend to present a single reality? Wikipedia on the other hand, as a socially constructed phenomenon, seems to be in line with many of the values of the constructivist paradigm.
To take this one step further, are there topics that may actually be better served by a multi-voice/multi-reality resource such as Wikipedia? Although I may not want my physician getting her information about how to operate on me from Wikipedia, I would be appreciative of a teacher shaping his/her understanding of student learning, at least in part, from information gathered from a multi-reality resource such as Wikipedia.
As I read for my other class this week, there has been a shift in epistemological perspectives over time. While there was a time when the single-reality/all encompassing Truth dominated all research perspectives, this is no longer the only accepted way to approach research (although it may still be the dominant perspective…). More scholars, particularly in certain fields such as the social sciences, are approaching their work from a perspective that recognizes, and in fact is shaped by, many different realities. These different realities are shaping Wikipedia. If the epistemological perspective of our culture shifts more to accepting that multiple realities exist, will a resource like Wikipedia be more widely supported, even for scholarly work?
First of all, Aldo, I appreciate your original post. I agree that wikipedia has great value. It is a useful tool when I want to look up random things like which episode of the West Wing was the one where Sam got elected? It is helpful when I can't remember who won the Super Bowl 5 years ago. I have utilized it often when I am playing trivial pursuit and no one knows the answer so we need to look it up.
ReplyDeleteIt is brilliant. And I agree with the premise that it is pulling the world together in an information age, in this global economy.
Yes, I understand that certain people who are much more educated than I believe that wikipedia is inaccurate and therefore must be discredited. What does it matter? Why are people so invested in being bitter about wikipedia?
Braelin, I like your post a lot. Nice job pulling in the paradigm discussion! When you and I talked about this after class, I thought it was a very interesting idea. But now that I have read it, I think it is very well written and brilliantly argued.
I had a conversation once with someone who was disgusted when he saw me reading a John Grisham novel. He kept telling me it was a waste of my time, not worth it, etc. But I was on my holiday break, and I wanted to read something that didn't take too much brain power. He argued that if people only read John Grisham, our society was in a downward spiral. I argued that if people are reading at all, it's good. Who are we to judge value in that experience?
I say the same of wikipedia. If people find value in it, let them. We don't have to be elitist about it and write it off altogether. A postmodernist would say that countless truths exist...let the masses go find their truth...as well as the recipe for Toll House cookies.