For professors and students, Wikipedia presents challenege
During the winter of 2001, an affluent options trader and Internet entrepreneur set out to build a comprehensive, do-it-yourself, online encyclopedia. By drawing on the collective data of amateur contributors, Jimmy Wales hoped to build a repository of human knowledge unrivaled by the best libraries in the world.
When Wikipedia initially launched, Wales was so anxious about the communal wisdom concept that he would wake up during the night to check the site for vandalism. However, the self-described “pathological optimist” was pleasantly surprised to find most users contributed accurate entries.
Academics quickly decried Wikipedia as untrustworthy. Without the credentialed experts that Encyclopedia Britannica employs, Wikipedia was viewed as problematic. In campuses across the country, the pros of Wikipedia – speed, ease of use, breadth, accessibility – are bring weighed against the cons – untrustworthy articles, incomplete and biased information.
The history department at Middlebury College in Vermont has taken a united stand against the online encyclopedia, banning its citation in academic papers. Winthrop’s faculty does not have a similar policy, but Wikipedia use is still widely discouraged.
“I do not allow students to cite Wikipedia in their papers. I do not consider the source authoritative,” Karen Kedrowski, political science department chair, said. “Wikipedia does not have adequate peer review or other quality control measures in place. Anyone can edit any entry, irrespective of their expertise on the topic.”
Students who cite Wikipedia in their papers will receive a lower grade, Kedrowski said. Other professors see the benefits Wikipedia offers.
“[Wikipedia’s] quality has skyrocketed in recent years,” history professor Dave Pretty said. “It lets you see its work and see exactly what the points of contention are, where historians disagree. You can see intellectual sausages being made.”
Still, Pretty says students should use the online encyclopedia as a reference tool, not for research. Political science professor Christopher Van Aller agrees Wikipedia is not for serious academic studies.
“I would consider it in the same league as Time magazine, not worth using in a college-level paper,” Van Aller said.
Wikipedia use among Winthrop students remains popular. Some point to it as a quick and easy resource that saves the trouble of combing Google for information.
“I like it because people that know about a subject can add information to that site. You can always find something on Wikipedia,” Samantha Coburn, physical education freshman, said.
Students also appreciate the online encyclopedia’s timely information, a feature that printed encyclopedias often lack.
“It has a lot of information on current things as well as old stuff,” Salena Brabham, psychology junior, said.
Philosophy sophomore Joe Garnett sees Wikipedia’s editable nature as both a strength and weakness.
“It is up to date because it is peer editable, but is perhaps too easy to insert mistakes in it for the same reason,” Garnett said.
Though there is no campus-wide policy, many students concede their professors forbid the citation of Wikipedia in papers.
“Many professors won’t let [Wikipedia] count as a reliable source,” physical education junior Laura Gay said.
Accounting freshman Shamoneak Jennings has heard similar stories.
“One of my friends said his GNED teacher told everyone they couldn’t use Wikipedia after they already had their papers in,” Jennings said.
Even with all the browbeating, Wikipedia remains wildly trendy. Wikipedia has become the second most visited research site on the Internet, closely following Dictionary.com. With more than 4 million entries, Wikipedia is 50 times the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The online encyclopedia will continue to be a presence in academia for many semesters to come. With such widespread popularity, many colleges, including Winthrop, might soon reach a consensus in addressing Wikipedia use by students.
