I was first introduced to Wikipedia by one of my instructors who thought it was an excellent website for research papers. I thought of it not only as being the greatest online encyclopedia ever made, but as being a vast source of information accumulated from all over the world. Wow, a website container holding the truth, (so I thought). Being excited and unwise at the time about my newly acquired knowledge of this online encyclopedia, I shared it with any and all whom I came in contact with that needed a “reliable” source of research information. Little did I know of its “potentially” wicked ways until one day I heard my 10 year old son say, in casual conversation with a friend, “I can not use Wikipedia for research papers. My teacher say’s its unreliable and anyone can change or update its contents”. Immediately, I wanted to have some clarification as to why my child would make such a fallacious statement about my "Wiki". After all, I was introduced to Wikipedia by my English Instructor and it has now left me in a wonder... is it wicked?
Prior to my son’s statement, I too, like my instructor, had shared Wikipedia with some of my students, friends and coworkers as an excellent source of information. At that particular time, I did not realize that a website created by the owner could be manipulated by someone else, especially an “ONLINE” reference website such as WIKIPEDIA. Well, as I begin my investigation, I decided to visit the source website itself and to my surprise—I saw these tiny little words that stood out larger than anything else on the web page, (obviously I didn’t see them before), read, “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. I rubbed my eyes in disbelief and said to myself, “You know not, it isn’t so, and how can this be?” I was amazed. While two of these three statements I could answer right away, which was, “You know not”--you’re reading it, “it isn’t so”—you’re reading it and it’s on the website. So, how can this be? At that particular time, I asked my son to share with me again his reason for not using the website. He again stated, “My teacher said it may be unreliable because anyone can edit what may or may not be the truth and it is not allowed as a research tool in our school. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it’s allowed in any of the schools in our district.”
Well being a mom, I had to know more. I preceded with my investigation, googling the words “Are individuals allowed to edit Wikipedia”? To my surprise, there were many web links or hits but none of which satisfied my curiosity. I then retuned to Wikipedia’s website and I begin to learn more about its Editorial Policies which allows an individual the opportunity to edit any subject matter as long as they follow the policy set forth. Astonishing! The trust and faith I had in Wikipedia had now vanished. I then understood why it was not allowed at son’s school and surrounding schools as a tool for working on research papers. It is a scary thought to know that there are millions of unsuspecting people in the world visiting this website, “Wikipedia” on a daily basis for references just as I did and never noticing the words “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. From that day on, I never talked about Wikipedia again until now, as my class project. As I viewed Steven Colbert’s Wikiality episode, he said it best when he stated, “any user can change any entry and if enough other individuals agree with them it becomes true”. For that reason alone, it should be abandoned not only from K-12 school system but every one who seeks use of information from this website as well. It’s wicked!
Wickedpedia I call it! What a fitting name. Today, I updated my online search concerning Wikipedia to see if anything had changed and the answer to that question is--No. The views are still the same, however I’ve found an article that was quoted by a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica by the name of Robert Henry and I think his words are gospel, “I couldn’t see how it could be represented as an encyclopedia .... It’s like nothing so much as a great game. It’s the encyclopedia game, played online"
Bottom line is, when it comes to Wikipedia, users should follow the lead of mothers all over the world who has children with video games, PS2, PS3’s and more. They know when to say. "It’s time to turn it OFF". And that, my friend, is what we should do for Wikipedia!
Works Cited
Colbert, S. (2006, July 31). Wikiality. Comedy Central. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=72347.
Wikipedia: Editorial Policies. (2010, January). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind).
Ini, Gilead. CAMERA: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. 3 May 2008. 13 January 2010 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1485.
1 comment:
Respectfully, I must disagree with much of your assessment of Wikipedia.
To begin with, Colbert’s stint on Wikiality is satire and therefore meant to poke fun at a topic. While I believe that all “jokes” contain truth, they do not contain the entire truth and hence must be viewed as the extreme. The same is true for any statement coming from a direct competitor, which Encyclopedia Britannica is.
Now with that being stated, I don’t believe calling for Wikipedia to be turned off is the best course of action. You even stated that you used to use it until you discovered that it’s information could ‘potentially’ be false. My question to you would be, “Why would you only rely on one source of information?” I understand your son’s school district for not allowing Wikipedia to be referenced in a research paper, but in my opinion the school would better service their pupils teaching exactly why one needs to be weary when reading any information from the internet. Any and all research must be supported my multiple sources.
I’ll leave you a few links to better understand my perspective:
Here’s a good article from the Library Journal exploring Librarians’ perpectives: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6317246.html
Information Today, Inc. presents an excellent comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar06/berinstein.shtml
Here’s a survey that was conducted comparing the two: http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval/
BBC News “Wikipedia survives research test”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Post a Comment