Why are professors so scared of Wikipedia?
Why are professors so scared of Wikipedia?
Chris Chu
In recent years, [tag]Wikipedia[/tag] has emerged as a source of information on everything there is to know, from historical origins of the letter A to the myth of the albino zebra. Its parent company is an international foundation with many projects aimed at expanding and sharing human knowledge worldwide. Many students now use it as a resource for class work. Many instructors have embraced the site as a learning tool and contribute their own article edits. Why, then, do some university professors still scoff at its mention?
The belief that Wikipedia is “bad” because it’s an online source that can be edited by anybody cannot be any further from the truth. The free online encyclopedia has advantages over other traditional resources since there is much more information available, and has measures in place to ensure accuracy and protect against vandalism.
Wikipedia is meant to be a [tag]free[/tag] (as in freedom) [tag]online encyclopedia[/tag] available to everyone. Its main feature is the ability for users worldwide to change its content, create new pages, and generally share a wealth of information online. Because space is not a genuine concern, it also covers a diversity of topics that traditional sources might omit. Its constant updates also mean the information stays current.
An integral part of the Wikipedia experience is the discussion section of a page, accessible through clicking the link at the top of any article. There, users can share their views on why they made a specific change, or discuss the accuracy of an article. I’ve even seen debates over the proper name spellings, or the placement of punctuation! So, there are obviously very dedicated users who strive make sure the information is accurate. Wikipedia also has a high standard of neutral point-of-view. Its articles are to be written in the style of a non-biased encyclopedia, to ensure it appeals to many different readers.
Since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, many users track changes to articles they edit, and revise pages involving their areas of expertise. A Wikipedia user who happens to be a professor of computer science will make sure that the article on IPv6 stays accurate. This system of tracking changes also provides protection against vandalism. Quotes and ideas even have proper footnote references included, so the reader can go straight to the source.
Wikipedia has set us on a new age of learning, but this time everybody can participate. Knowledge and ideas that were previously trapped in universities or expensive books are now freed for the whole world to share. For those critics who still disagree with Wikipedia’s accuracy, just go to the Stephen Harper entry and change his date of birth, or say he eats babies — it’ll be reverted back before anybody will notice.
This article originally published in the Argosy on 08 Feb 07.
This ClashBang.com article was written by Chris Chu. Tired of privately venting his frustration in vain, Chris decided to share his discontent with the rest of the world.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pm and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
While I’m not knocking Wikipedia it is far from an authority. While some problems do indeed get corrected quickly, some get missed for ages. Recently I discovered that the article for Neddylation was almost entirely incorrect, and yet had been around since November and had survived a few edits. Not only was it inacurate, but also unreadable.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A wikipedia is not “bad.” While a wikipedia is sometimes “reviewed,” it is not a peer-reviewed, or scholarly, source (which has been traditionally viewed as a reliable, credible source because the facts have been verified).
With a wikipedia, the readers must verify the information. Whereas with traditional encyclopedias, the verification process is done before publication, so the readers don’t have to do it. The current problem rests with the readers? That is, it’s now the readers responsibility to do what publishers have traditionally done—verify facts. The question or problem is this: Will readers take the time to verify the information? Or will readers spread unverified information, as some do who pass along the urban legends?