Teaching Wikipedia last week proved to be something of a revelation to me. As I read ‘Wikipedia: Representations of Knowledge’, chapter 5 from Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond, I learned about aspects of the online encyclopaedia that I had never considered before.
As a tutor and occasional lecturer I have always tended to dissuade students from using Wikipedia in their assignments. I’ve explained this stance on several grounds. Principally I have relied on the consensus that existed amongst many academics, when Wikipedia first emerged, that because anyone could edit any entry, then the information was not reliable. Another reason I have cited to students is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and at university it is not an appropriate source. Here I’ve compared Wikipedia to World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica suggesting that it would seem strange to quote these in a tertiary level assignment. Even when I began to use Wikipedia regularly–for blogging purposes–and saw that it was a useful site to link to for a plain English explanation on any topic where I couldn’t be sure of my readers’ existing knowledge, I still wouldn’t recommend its use to students. In this instance it was a case of not opening the floodgates; even suggesting that Wikipedia might be a starting point would ensure that many students did not research beyond it.
After reading about Wikipedia: its creation; as an example of ‘produsage; the efforts at quality control and disruption; the criticisms directed towards it; and the importance of educating its users, I remain unmoved in my conviction that it shouldn’t be cited at a tertiary level. My stance, however, should not be interpreted simply as a case of a hide-bound academic refusing to embrace grass-roots systems of knowledge. Indeed, one of the things that I most like about Wikipedia is that it is a user-led phenomenon; there is something empowering in the thought that a keen television fan can create an entry for his or her favourite TV show and identify it as significant in a particular context, according to values which are different to those of the Logies’ judges.
My reflections about Wikipedia over the last week have, rather, served to clarifiy in my mind the scope and purpose of Wikipedia. Now I won’t explain my advice not to use Wikipedia for tertiary level work by saying that because anyone can edit any entry it is therefore not reliable. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a rules-free zone and that there are policies and protocols in place to weed out misinformation. Now I will advise students not to quote Wikipedia in a tertiary setting simply because its claims to providing knowledge are far more modest than many users ask of it. While its discussion pages may document wars over the representation of various details and perspectives on any given entry, as a source, Wikipedia seeks to offer no more than a generalist level of information. It is this clear statement, supported by Wikipedia‘s No Original Research Policy, which prohibits the inclusion of self-published or original research that has crystalised my reasoning on why students shouldn’t quote from Wikipedia in assignments: at this level students are expected to conduct independent research using specialist and original sources to create their own arguments. Wikipedia simply does not aspire to be either specialist or original.