Wikipedia+Foe




 * Introduction **

Everyday students throughout the world log on to the internet and use the website Wikipedia to research topics. So what is Wikipedia? By definition it is "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wiki media Foundation." ("What is Wikipedia", 2010) Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown tremendously. Its popularity is credited to the fact that it is an online encyclopedia that allows anyone to edit its entries. In fact, Wikipedia is so prevalent on the internet that it will almost always pop up as a source on most web searches. For a Google search on Toni Braxton it was listed third, for Barack Obama it was listed fourth, and for chocolate it was listed second. Wikipedia is favored among its users, but it has educators fed up with students using the site as a primary resource and citing its content in their essays. ("What is Wikipedia", 2010) Wikipedia not only causes problems for teachers but it also causes students to report inaccurate information. With its easily accessible but unsubstantiated information on almost any topic, if a student uses Wikipedia as a citation it can be interpreted as mockery of a legitimate inquiry. After all, how can a site that allows anyone to add, change, or remove information be credible? ("Grammy Award", 2010)


 * Wikipedia in the Classroom **

With the increase in technology, it is only expected that students use the internet for research. Sadly, instead of viewing scholarly journals or the online encyclopedia, students are choosing to rely on Wikipedia for information. It's obvious appeal is its ease of use in research. Utilizing the online resources from university libraries is a difficult process and almost archaic compared to the user-friendly interface that average computer and internet users are used to. Teachers are strongly opposing the use of this website because it is viewed as an over-used, misunderstood research tool used by students and wreaking havoc on the research process. Although Wikipedia does have some redeeming qualities such as a huge amount of information, recommendations for additional books and links for the topic being researched, there are several cons to using Wikipedia that may possibly overshadow those qualities:
 * anyone with access to the internet can change or add information to a topic found in Wikipedia
 * researchers use the information found on Wikipedia without questioning its validity
 * students often use Wikipedia as a stopping point for research instead of a starting point

Despite all of these facts, many students still struggle with their instructors' warnings to NOT use Wikipedia and often stop there first. The following video from YouTube "Wikipedia Haters" exemplifies that very point.

[|Wikipedia Haters]media type="youtube" key="nXVxz48-KcM" width="414" height="333"

__Alterations to the Information __ Students are eager to use Wikipedia because they receive up to date information. This timely information is often in exchange for accuracy. Supporters will argue that Wikipedia gives students a chance to be critical thinkers and better learners. This is particularly true in the areas of collaboration and negotiation skills. However, how does one “collaborate or negotiate facts? Do we want students to have the opinion that it is alright to alter research without validating the results or demonstrating proof to back up their findings?

Wikipedia has been used in numerous political attacks and been used to spread rumors and misinformation on a large scale. Rush Limbaugh has been talking about how unreliable it is and then used it when describing the background of a judge recently ("Rush Limbaugh falls", 2010). It is just too unreliable to be used as a definitive source. Author Jim Green wrote, "Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information". (Green, 2008)

__Questioning the Credibility of the Information __ Wikipedia is, simply put, an unreliable source. In a ninth grade English class, students were asked to determine the reliability of the research sources. When examining the plethora of information available on the internet and learning how to do research using the internet, a class of students was asked to find the winner of the 1994 Grammy for Best New Artist. This question was designed to emphasize the unreliability of Wikipedia, their go-to for class research. Wikipedia indicates that the winner was Toni Braxton ("Grammy Award Winners", 2010) when, in fact, the official Grammy website reports that the winner was Sheryl Crow (Crovitz, 2009). When the students conducted their research they became very frustrated on which source to trust. The trivial nature of this example should in no way mask the importance of getting every detail right. When errors have riddled the pages, what information can you rely on as facts? If Wikipedia can get this information wrong, we can assume that there are many more errors that have gone uncorrected. (Yes, if you are wondering, attempts have been made to correct the error, but apparently a Toni Braxton fan continues to encourage the myth.)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, wanted everyone to “imagine a world in which every single person …is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge”. (Richardson, 2010) Surely this sounds like the ideal world in theory, however, when reality strikes, the sum of knowledge is often times limited to the person with the least amount of knowledge as they can be the most damaging sources. Wiki experts will argue that when errors are made or vandals strike, editors will quickly work to restore information back to a creditable level (or the level in which the editor feels is creditable!). (Richardson, 2010) In the meantime, what happens to the individuals that try using Wikipedia as a resource of information only to find out that there are inaccuracies in the data provided?

__Convenient, Yet Making Students Comfortable __ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In order for Wikipedia to be used in academic research one almost has to find multiple other sources to validate what is found on Wikipedia. Why wouldn't a person simply go elsewhere for their information that they are confident is accurate? Wikipedia is the resource of choice for students because it is easy to navigate through the pages and they can retrieve information quicker than using other resources. Instead of searching through books or numerous websites, students are able to type a topic and receive information and references. Because the information on Wikipedia contains dates, highlighted vocabulary words, and is broken down into subcategories students do not question the credibility of its resources. Instead of using multiple references, they cross reference within Wikipedia. For example, while searching a topic, simply click on a highlighted word and you will be redirected to another source. Students have a tendency to use Wikipedia as their start and stopping point regardless of the fact that they have been advised by their instructors not to. So is it ease of navigation that draws them to Wikipedia or laziness and habit? Regardless of a student's preference, it is important for us as educators to reinforce the pitfalls and dangers of Wikipedia and guide them to change their research strategies by researching any information that they find on Wikipedia to make sure that it is an credible source.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wikipedia is not the answer, so what should I do? **

One comes to the realization that Wikipedia is not the answer in the "one-stop shopping" of credible, verifiable information. So what should we do in our search to ensure the integrity of the information we gather? The obvious response is to utilize sites that, as a matter of course, do everything they can to preserve the credibility of the information presented within them. Consider the following seven alternative websites. These sites and sites similar to them follow protocols that insulate them, to a great degree, from the problems of misinformation and unverified postings common to Wikipedia. > A website authored by scholars and experts that are either elected or invited to participate. Postings and updates must be approved before being published. ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007) > A site that seems to be a happy medium between Wikipedia and Scholarpedia. You must use your real name to register and contribute posts. ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007) > Online companion site to the esteemed published volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a yearly subscription fee. ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007) > Another yearly subscription site. This site includes a thesaurus, world atlas and research tools ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007). > Part of of [|Pearson Education]. With its many multimedia features, it is a favorite for students, especially those enrolled in on-line or distance learning programs.("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007) > A conservative, Christian-influenced wiki. ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007) > A Wikipedia spoof site. If you need a chuckle, give it a try. ("Top 7 Alternatives", 2007)
 * 1) [|Scholarpedia]
 * 1) [|Citizendium]
 * 1) [|Encyclopedia Britannica Online]
 * 1) [|MSN Encarta]
 * 1) [|Infoplease]
 * 1) [|Conservapedia]
 * 1) [|Uncyclopedia]

With all the facts and negative experiences, the wise are choosing to avoid Wikipedia. From our research, we have even located the most appropriate way to say, "Goodbye to Wikipedia" (Dini, 2007): media type="youtube" key="1anOrh_9Jw4" width="425" height="350"

code Dini,Dino (September 16, 2007) code


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">References: **

> []
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Crovitz,Darren, Smoot, Scott W. "Wikipedia:Friend, Not Foe".Published January 2009. retrieved 10-20-10
 * 1) Dini, Dino "Wikipedia", September 16, 2007, retrieved 10-23-10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1anOrh_9Jw4&feature=player_embedded A Dino Dini Production MMVVII [|www.dinodini.com]
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Grammy Award for Best New Artist." Wikipedia. 22 Oct. 2010 []
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Grammy Award Winners." Grammy.com. 22 Oct. 2010 []
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Green, Jim."Why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for facts".Published July 16, 2008.retrieved 10-22-10 []
 * 5) Richardson, Will. (2010). //Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms,// (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
 * 6) Rindsberg, Ashley."Century of Smear: Obama, Rush Libaugh, and Wikipedia". Published by The Huntington Post, March 12, 2009. retrieved 10-20-10 []
 * 7) "Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax about Judge Roger Vinson". Published by the Huffington Post, September 16, 2010. retrieved 10-21-10 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]
 * 8) Top 7 Alternatives to Wikipedia, Online Education Database, Published Thursday 7th of June, 2007, retrieved 10-23-10 []
 * 9) "What is Wikipedia?" Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2010 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]
 * 10) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Jerry 7171. "Wikipedia-lolcat". July 7, 2007. Online Image. Flikr 9. October 21, 2010. []