Jimmy Wales Says Students 'Should Use' Wikipedia 345
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC has up an article chatting with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Wales views the Wikipedia site as an educational resource, and apparently thinks teachers who downplay the site are 'bad educators'. '[A] perceived lack of authority ... has drawn criticism from other information sources. Ian Allgar of Encyclopedia Britannica maintains that, with 239 years of history and rigorous fact-checking procedures, Britannica should remain a leader in authoritative, politically-neutral information. Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism.'"
Institutions (Score:1, Insightful)
Not a spec of Bias. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well color me surprised at the answers.
They are bad teachers (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure they should, sorta (Score:5, Insightful)
Students should definitely use Wikipedia as a good place to find real sources. Of course, if they actually cite it, they're freakin' insane and should go back and re-learn how to research.
rubish... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way referencing Wikipedia is OK. It's not peer reviewed. Not only is the information often wrong, but the information it does has is very biased (which is OK - all information is biased, but you need to see the whole range). Referencing Wikipedia is like saying "Some random guy on the internet once said...". Not exactly a lot of weight.
But using Wikipedia for a starting point - that's a good thing to do. When researching a new subject, I will often read Wikipedia for initial information, and use the sources it cites as a starting point.
Vandalism is overblown. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even when it's not allowed as a direct source, Wikipedia is always a great first stop to find more information about something.
Hitting a moving target (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem there lies in referencing something which is changeable.
You reference it,
Someone edits the article,
Your reference is potentially no longer valid.
Referencing the 2006 edition of Britannica is fairly straightforward.
Referencing the 7:13 AM EST July 24th, 2007 version of a Wiki article on the other hand....
Now, his comment about how Wikipedia should be seen as a 'stepping stone' to other sources is 100% on the mark. Great for a basic understanding and the in-text links to related material make for better overall understanding.
Inaccurate summation of Jimbo's words (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that he says this about those who fully ban students from reading Wikipedia. He doesn't say that those who "downplay" the project are bad educators, he says that those who fully ban students from even reading the website are bad. And you know what? He's right, as that's censorship. Those teachers who undertake bans are bad - they do a great disservice to their students. Sure, criticise Wikipedia, but don't ban it! in life students need to be able to read a source critically and at least assess what is being written. Banning it doesn't help build critical faculties. I should also point out that as a first source for information, in general Wikipedia can be really good.
Re:They are bad teachers (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. That's a policy worth following even at the level of internet debates. If someone asks me for a summary of a topic, I'll point them at the article. However, if what's called for is a discussion of one aspect, or an authoritative reference, WP is not the right answer. However, more and more I find that WP is the fastest way to find a good reference on a subject -- find the relevant article, look at the references section, and the odds are good there will be an appropriate link.
Knowing how to use, and more importantly, how not to use, and encyclopedia should be basic knowledge. Teachers should be teaching it, and shouldn't matter in the slightest what encyclopedia you use for a paper, because the reader will never know.
OMG Vandalism! (Score:3, Insightful)
and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism
Yeah, that would suck if because of vandalism on Wikipedia kids wrote in papers that the Earth is the largest planet in the world [wikipedia.org], or that Mark Taddonio built the pyriamids (sic) [wikipedia.org].
Lazy Teachers = Lazy Students (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a primary source. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Institutions (Score:5, Insightful)
All the grad students look stuff up on it. There are lots [wikipedia.org] of [wikipedia.org] pretty scholarly [wikipedia.org] physics articles [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia, and it's a good place to go when you need to look something up or get guidance on a fundamental topic.
Of course, in physics, you're supposed to think about anything you read and confirm that it makes sense before you repeat it or believe it. This really should be true in all fields, but for some reason it's beaten into physicists' heads more than some others, I think.
Wikipedia is never the final authority on anything, but it's a good starting point. If you can't remember which one of Maxwell's equations has the minus sign, it's a quicker place than most (unless you have your copy of Jackson [wikipedia.org] at hand.)
So if it's paid for, it's 100% accurate? (Score:2, Insightful)
- one's free, the other isn't.
- one's updated in the blink of an eye many times to be filtered, altered, retouched, changed and quite possibly modified; the other has to wait a year to be filtered, altered, retouched, changed and quite possibly modified.
- one requires a computer, the other requires a lamp or the sun.
- one weighs many pounds and takes up space, the other can fit in one's pocket without ripping a hole in it.
- one requires an internet connection, the other requires a decent wage.
- one provides faster access to cross-information than the other.
- one provides constant access to information than the other.
- one could break your back, the other could break your carpal tunnel.
- both are enjoyed with a hot cup of coffee or tea.
- both provide the potential to provide the answers that people are looking for.
- both are used extensively whether anyone likes it or not.
- both will continue to be used extensively whether anyone likes it or not.
- anyone that would condone burning either to the ground could be considered to be a nazi.
- the definition of nazi can be found in either one.
- the world will continue to rotate on an axis whether or not either one exists or flourishes.
- one should generate a printed volume, the other should provide an online edition.
- both provide the information required that proves that competition works better than monopolies do in more ways than the other.
Re:Hitting a moving target (Score:3, Insightful)
How well does that work when the articles get deleted [slashdot.org]? If Wikipedia was append-only, sure, but entire articles go missing all too often to ever reliably cite.
So many times when people fight technology (Score:5, Insightful)
I often think wikipedia is an excellent source in itself and for deeper knowledge, a reasonable starting point. Too often, the oft-heard admonishment "dig deeper!" does not always apply to students using wikipedia as their single source for a report, but also by the teachers criticizing wikipedia - usually they scan the surface of one edit of one article to look for those errors - while wholly ignoring the revealing and complete log of wikipedias discussions and history behind that single article. Behind that one surface, you get most of the interesting parts of a subject -- the common misunderstandings, misperceptions, and myths. The genuine points of contention and controversy and the gray areas where the truth is not wholly understood or available.
Instead, teachers indulge of what they criticize in their students - intellectual lethargy. Personally, I like what this professor is doing with wikipedia:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071030-prof-replaces-term-papers-with-wikipedia-contributions.html [arstechnica.com]
It's about the smartest embrace of wikipedia I have seen so far.
Re:Hitting a moving target (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, the irony... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even Britannica is 100% correct, so I'm not sure there's any substance to the point you're trying to make.
Re:rubish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure they should, sorta (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia policy is to not contain original information [wikipedia.org], so you shouldn't be looking for it there.
Source criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
"A critical mind is a questioning mind" is a good lesson and should be taught at every level of education.
Virtually all sources are biased, in one way or another, and students need to be aware of this and treat the information in a manner befitting the source.
Wikipedia is just another source (not a primary one, of course, with a few exceptions) and should be treated like every other secondary source - with skepticism. The fortunate thing about Wikipedia - and one that makes it a much better secondary source than most others - is that there are abundant links to other sources (although not necessarily primary sources, which would be preferable).
Additionally, Wikipedia enables one to view the version history and a discussion of the article in question. This discussion can often be used to discern if there are any particular points of contention that one should be aware of. This shouldn't replace ones critical view of "accepted facts", of course.
In practice, we are inundated with such an overwhelming amount of "news", "facts" or interpretations of same, that we cannot possibly be highly critical of every single item. Instead we rely on the reputation of the source. It is important, however, that we routinely question the reputation of the source.
For teachers to ignore Wikipedia does not seem particularly insightful and one has to wonder whether the teachers in question are the same authoritarian breed of teachers that can wreck havoc on a young mind.
Re:No conflict of interest here, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, what?
Re:Sure they should, sorta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are bad teachers (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been recently brought up [slashdot.org], Wikipedia is not above corruption. It can be used to push an agenda, simply by leaving out sources which contradict your agenda and linking to those which agree with it. If you aren't already familiar with the subject (which would make Wikipedia unneccessary), how are you going to notice ?
No, a teacher who tells his students to not trust Wikipedia is right. It can't be trusted, at least not for anything the people in charge of it are likely to care about. Of course the exact same is true of Encyclopedia Britannica and any imaginable source.
So... what does that leave us with ? A healthy amount of suspicion for any information source, I'd hope. And I truly hope that students learn mistrust and suspicion, rather than blindly believing anyone who can get at least one other creep to agree with them.
Wikipedia is OK for basic information, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
When using anything for citation, you need to make absolutely sure, that your sources are valid and not just some made-up story of creationists or school boys from Wisconsin (nothing against Wisconsin
Recently, a big scientific magazin (Nature?) officially withdrawed an article about creationism and genetic development from the 50ths (because the author wanted them to do so), because it has been misused by creationists as a "scientific proof" for their theories. (sorry, no reference
So what? Well, it shows the importance of PROPER citation references. If you want to state something, you need proof. Either, you can proof it yourself and write about your personal experience ("damn YES 110V AC *DO* hurt so DON'T touch the wires"), or you need a reference to someone who had that personal experience (or, in theoretical environments, shares your opinion).
Creationists misused this article (which contained some statements not considered valid anymore even by the author himself, time can change "reality" perception), while any other scientific source simply said (or proofed) the OPPOSITE meaning. The article itself was not the problem, but the unchecked - or in this case, I think, biased - usage of the contents.
If a wikipedia article has a good "foundation", say, external citation references that can be followed and point to qualified research documents or other sources which are again based on "proper" information, the information in the article can be, as with every other information re-used in a scientific article, *validated*, and used without any complaints.
But if the article just STATES something, without proof or reference, one should definitely check for other sources, either supporting or invalidating the article.
It's not that much different from other references you use. If you just dig up some crackpot thesis from the 30ths and use it without checking for other publications or statements about the topic, you might simply use false information, invalidating your own work.
That's about it, in fact, is has not much to do with "wikipedia can be edited by anyone" - it's just about proper scientific work.
Oh, and schools should not be babbling about whether or not "wikipedia is bad", but teach proper scientific (and social) skills.
Paid-for == trustworthy?? Since when? (Score:2, Insightful)
The assholes have definitely taken over (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Jimbo Whales has experienced this. He started an article on Mzoli's Meats [wikipedia.org], a butcher shop and restaurant in South Africa. When it was almost speedily deleted, he told the deletors to "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby." [latimes.com]. In other words, get a life and stop ruining the project. Unfortunately, a bunch of editors added information to the article so it's now kept, and Jimbo doesn't have to confront either the bitterness many have felt in getting their work destroyed or remaking policy so that people like my friend would continue contributing.
These asshole admins are really making Wikipedia a crappy site, and their effect on valuable editors is worse than what any nasty vandal might do since admins are part of the power hierarchy. This is another valuable lesson in what happens when you give thoughtless small minded people a little power. They make their pronouncements and mass annihilations without any consideration on what the effect might be on a person who has spent sometimes hundreds of man hours creating, maintaining, and protecting his/her articles. They dismiss people by spouting some arbitrary interpretation of policy backed up by their cabals, while those who have better things to do like actually create content get fucked over. James Derk of The Daily Southtown wrote an article [dailysouthtown.com] where he talks about having a similar experience.
Also, here's a good Slashdot thread [slashdot.org] illustrating the intellectual dishonesty of the deletionist admins. It is part of the Slashdot story Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions [slashdot.org] which is filled with former contributors testifying to their own treatment at the hands of these assholes. It's sad how some people seem to really get off on destroying the work of others.
I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.
I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.
I think Wikipedia has a choice right now. Allow a lot more in than they are currently doing and piss off the deletionists, or let these deletionists have their way and piss off the content creators(And I should add, it's not only deleted articles that are targeted, but plot synopses, trivia sections, clearly permissible images, etc. have all succumbed to the slash and burn mentality of these deletionists.). So Jimbo, who would you rather keep around?
Re:rubish... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Institutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Institutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless he's a Republican politician from the Christian Right, in which case all bets are off.
[See, I was just kidding there. It's a Saturday, after all, and I'm drinkin' early.]
I've said it before and I'll say it again (Score:5, Insightful)
An encyclopedia of any source should be the start of your research, not the end of it. It gives you the keywords and background necessary to find the real information from a primary source.
Re:Not a spec of Bias. (Score:1, Insightful)
What you'll make of that is up to you, but personally, I find someone who says "you should choose my product because it's good" more likeable than someone who goes "my competitor's product is bad, therefore you should choose mine by default".
It's really sad to see that the only thing Britannica, an encyclopaedia with a tradition of more than 200 years, has left as a selling point is "Wikipedia sucks".
Re:Not a spec of Bias. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been caught up in the anti-wikipedia controversy lately. I'm still a very happy and frequent contributor/user and so I'm all the more concerned when I hear about overt manipulations that occur at the very top by a core group who (except for Jimbo himself) hide behind their usernames and are completely anonymous. That adds to the grain of salt I have from the subtle sources of bias that can creep in.
So, no, I don't consider Wikipedia to be sourceable, certainly not at the university level, perhaps not even at the high school level. Instead, you should use wikipedia as a starting point in your research, maybe going to the references in the articles you find. But as the recent controversy shows, you can't just stop there. You need to really hunt around for opposing viewpoints that might be intentionally suppressed.
At the graduate level, using wikipedia does more harm than good-- it biases your thinking without providing you with depth. At that level, you should already have the overview of the topic anyway. Instead you really should use traditional research techniques and bypass Wikipedia altogether.
Define "Young Students" (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully as they learn more they will understand more nuanced aspects of inaccuracy (bias, for one) and you can apply the more formal academic rules of research papers that would view Wikipedia as not acceptable as a primary source. By that point, you are more than welcome to go look around it to find information to lead you to primary sources.
Re:Institutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Institutions (Score:2, Insightful)
If your prof has you buying his book, it's because he thinks it's the best book for the course. He might or might not be right about that, but he's not listing his book because his seven-cents-a-copy royalties are tipping the balance (and especially since the first few hundred dollars of those royalties -- if the book actually makes that much -- go to paying indexing costs, etc.)
Re:They are bad teachers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a spec of Bias. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Institutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Until the average undergraduate is capable of making that distinction
If you're not capable of making that decision, you shouldn't be an undergraduate.
Shouldn't we demand some basic critical thinking skills from our undergrads at all?
Re:Institutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wikipedia is an excellent resource is the requirement for articles to have some type of references listed for accuracy and peer review. I've seen more references to other books and articles on Wikipedia than I have in printed or online encyclopedias (such as World Book, Britannica, etc). The immense amount of references alone gives students a great place to start their research.
Re:Institutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what's the difference? The end result is the same.
Students should be taught to be skeptical of all sources - rather than having one considered "bad" and others considered "correct". Because they can all be wrong.