Tom Whitby tweeted an interesting question this morning:
“If research supports the fact that Wikipedia is more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, why are educators so slow to accept it as a source?”
I’ve been asking that same question at my rural high school, where I teach in a wired classroom. Kids embrace Wikipedia not only because it’s easy to access but also because they trust it. Every teacher who tells them not to use it loses credibility with them. But I’ve started to understand teachers’ reluctance.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so teachers believe it must not be credible. In one workshop a 20-something teacher told me that she had edited the Wikipedia entry of her very small hometown to state that her father was the mayor. (The town was too small for a mayor.) She stated smugly that her entry had never been deleted, and on that basis she didn’t allow any of her students to use Wikipedia as a source. I wanted to ask her why she deliberately published false information, but it was clear she just wanted to establish an excuse for her students not to use Wikipedia. She had made up her mind.
Another problem is the frequent comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica. We try to wean kids off general encyclopedia usage by the end of elementary school. Why would we want them to use an online encyclopedia?
Most important, however, is that teachers don’t know the process that goes into editing Wikipedia. Most have never read the history or discussion pages to an entry and therefore don’t understand the process (and sometimes, the zeal) involved in publishing an article that has accurate information. They don’t know about locking down an article during controversy, about editorial review, about creating accounts, about citation — in short, they know one piece but not the entire process.
With all respect to grieving families, I have to say we get to see Wikipedia at its best in the 24-48 hours after the death of a famous person, especially if that person is controversial. I am currently using screen shots from the Discussion page on Charlton Heston in my workshops. (Unfortunately, I was traveling when Michael Jackson died.) For one thing, people can see that Wikipedia will lock down a page for a while if it’s deemed necessary. Even better, the Discussion page reveals the conversation that goes into crafting a person’s biography. Even getting Heston’s birth date correct becomes a matter for careful research. (Good modeling for students, by the way!) But how many people actually read the Discussion page?
Once people know the process that goes on in Wikipedia, the resource becomes more trustworthy. Until then, Tom, I’m afraid people will consider its credibility suspect.
P. S. In my classroom the policy is simple: use Wikipedia as a starting point if you wish, but corroborate everything.
