I’ll be honest in saying from the beginning that this post may or may not belong here but as it is something that has come up in a number of my graduate level classes, that is the tie I’m making. Feel free to think I’m pushing it for my last blog entry. ;-)
While perusing InsideHigherEd.com, I ran across the article Sociology and Wikipedia. Initially I thought the article may be about society using the site but even better, the article discusses the field of Sociology using and trying to improve the informative (but perhaps not scholarly or reliable) tool. The article starts by telling a story about how Erik Olin Wright, a well-known author and Sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison cited Wikipedia in a paper before quickly submitting it and how a student may have been chastised for this same action. The story goes on to talk about the usage of Wikipedia in a scholarly atmosphere and how the site should only be used as a spring board. Furthermore, Wikimedia Foundation has been trying to mobilize a group of academic volunteers to help make Wikipedia more factual, reliable and scholarly. The Association of Psychological Scientists (ASP) and now the American Sociological Association (ASA) have encouraged their members and students to submit information to help improve the web site.
This article made me really think about the future of Wikipedia and in a broader spectrum, research and scholarly work in general. In conversations I have had in my classes about the web site it has been agreed upon that it is acceptable to use the site as a spring board to obtain bits of information and continue research from those bits of information but that Wikipedia should not be used as a direct source. Especially with online research, I think this is fair when it doesn’t seem to matter what topic you Google, Wikipedia is one of the first links that is provided. NOTE: I do realize that using Google in this way should also be a springboard for further research and I in no way mean to be standing at the top of hypocrite mountain.
However, with that being said, doesn’t it bother anyone else that this professor even referenced Wikipedia as a source?! Sure, he probably wouldn’t be the well-known author he is without putting in plenty of time and energy to previous research but what does it say to upcoming researchers that Wright was in a hurry so he just through in the Wikipedia so the information would be referenced? To me, it means the appropriate time wasn’t put into whatever he was writing and it suggests that Wikipedia is an acceptable source. Other thoughts?
The other point I’d like to bring up that this article made me think about was the participation of professional associations trying to improve the information on the web site. Originally my thought was that any information that could be provided from a professional or researcher to improve Wikipedia can only be good. After second thought, what does that lead to? While it could lead to Wikipedia being even a greater spring board than before, my fear is that it will eventually be an accepted academic resource because of the contributors to the site.
Wikipedia says: Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose.
Notice that second sentence in the last paragraph..."anyone with Internet access..." Once the information is submitted, who knows what is actually put on the web site and what may be turned down. However, while Wikipedia remains open for pretty much anyone to submit information to (which seems to be their original model and intention) I would hope that it is never an acceptable source for scholarly work.
I agree with you. One thing this class has taught me is that every issue is complex and likely has more than two sides. Though I'm all for content that is edited by a community to come to a sort of 'average' idea of what is true, Wikipedia can't get at two competing perspectives. I think it's important for students (me included) to read different opinions and their relative sides and have to critically think about them. Wikipedia may tell me that the Civil War occurred in 1865, but it can't get at the vast complexity of opinions about what the Civil War was really about. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a fine place to start as a "spring board." In my experience, the sources it takes me to aren't necessarily the ones that make me really think about an issue.
Dana, I appreciate you starting a discussion on this topic. I am generally in agreement. I do have one tiny little issue with this idea of Wikipedia as a professor's worst nightmare (a widely held belief, not limited to this blog). I believe that there are certain social phenomena, about which a true scholarly/academic resource does not exist. How does one explain such a phenomenon without using Wikipedia? It is often a great source for these types of things and it makes a lot of sense why sociology might be looking to incorporate it into their scholarly writing.
ReplyDeleteI, like many others, use wikipedia as a source of knowledge for things I learned about in 3rd grade and can't remember (who was president in 1920?). Of course, I would never cite this type of information in any academic writing. However, I often use wikipedia to look up a reference made by clients or students. If there isn't another source, how else should we be citing "what the kids are doing these days"? Besides talking to some actual kids, I think wikipedia can be a good resource for things like this. Otherwise, go get a book from the library!
I agree that Wikipedia is a great resource for quick facts albeit not scholarly in the context of scholarly writing and research as a doctoral student. Nonetheless, it is a valuable resource that should not be totally discounted. Maybe the concept should be duplicated in a context that is standardized, credible, and can be cite worthy since the general public seems to refer to it as a source more often than not.
ReplyDelete