Middlebury College: A Stand Against Wikipedia

asteriskea · January 26, 2007, 6:33am

In an effort to be educative but not punitive

the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia — while convenient — may not be trustworthy.

“As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation,” he said.

The department made what Wyatt termed a consensus decision on the issue after discussing problems professors were seeing as students cited incorrect information from Wikipedia in papers and on tests. In one instance, Wyatt said, a professor noticed several students offering the same incorrect information, from Wikipedia.

There was some discussion in the department of trying to ban students from using Wikipedia, but Wyatt said that didn’t seem appropriate. Many Wikipedia entries have good bibliographies, Wyatt said. And any absolute ban would just be ignored. “There’s the issue of freedom of access,” he said. “And I’m not in the business of promulgating unenforceable edicts.”…

He said he doubted that a paper would be rejected for having a single Wikipedia footnote, but that students would be told that they shouldn’t do so, and that multiple violations would result in reduced grades or even a failure. “The important point that we wish to communicate to all students taking courses and submitting work in our department in the future is that they cite Wikipedia at their peril,” he said.

He stressed that the objection of the department to Wikipedia wasn’t its online nature, but its unedited nature, and he said students need to be taught to go for quality information, not just convenience…

Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”…

Roy Rosenzweig, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, did an analysis of the accuracy of Wikipedia for The Journal of American History, and he found that in many entries, Wikipedia was as accurate or more accurate than more traditional encyclopedias. He said that the quality of material was inconsistent, and that biographical entries were generally well done, while more thematic entries were much less so. Like Ordonez, he said the real problem is one of college students using encyclopedias when they should be using more advanced sources.

“College students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in their papers,” he said. “That’s not what college is about. They either should be using primary sources or serious secondary sources.”

In the world of college librarians, a major topic of late has been how to guide students in the right direction for research, when Wikipedia and similar sources are so easy. Some of those who have been involved in these discussions said that the Middlebury history department’s action pointed to the need for more outreach to students.

Lisa Hinchliffe, head of the undergraduate library and coordinator of information literacy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said that earlier generations of students were in fact taught when it was appropriate (or not) to consult an encyclopedia and why for many a paper they would never even cite a popular magazine or non-scholarly work. “But it was a relatively constrained landscape,” and students didn’t have easy access to anything equivalent to Wikipedia, she said. “It’s not that students are being lazy today. It’s a much more complex environment.”

When she has taught, and spotted footnotes to sources that aren’t appropriate, she’s considered that “a teachable moment,” Hinchliffe said. She said that she would be interested to see how Middlebury professors react when they get the first violations of their policy, and said she thought there could be positive discussions about why sources are or aren’t good ones. That kind of teaching, she said, is important “and can be challenging.”

Steven Bell, associate librarian for research and instructional services at Temple University, said of the Middlebury approach: “I applaud the effort for wanting to direct students to good quality resources,” but he said he would go about it in a different way.

“I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”

Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”

<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki</a>

nervousmommy · January 26, 2007, 6:34am

My child’s high school (Lawrenceville) did this a year ago.

asteriskea · January 26, 2007, 7:44am

nm, kudos to Lawrenceville. I have to admit that I am surprised that such a policy is needed at a place like Middlebury. Sign of the times, I suppose. Most of the teachers at my kids’ high school frown on the use of wiki as a source but for now there is no policy statement or concerted stand against it and, from what I hear, students do use it and often - I would hope though that by the 11th grade most students should manage to cultivate a finer sense of the academic issues at stake and even strive to find credible web-based primary source material, as well as secondary sources, for their research projects.

Wikipedia distresses History Department

The department’s new policy on Wikipedia will be formally brought into full effect this coming spring. Professors will include the statement’s language in course syllabi and in the instructions for senior theses. Some especially concerned teachers, such as Waters, pledged to drive home the message early and personally.

“To me, it was a sort of self-evident issue, and then I realized this wasn’t the case,” he said. “I’ll be talking about it in the first week of classes so there isn’t any doubt or confusion about the whole thing.”

Though Waters’s resolution did not outline punitive measures for violations of the new code, Morsman emphasized that students using Wikipedia did so at their own risk.

“If you find information on Wikipedia,” she said, “and you use it on a test and the information is wrong, it’s your problem, not ours.”

Student reactions to the department’s resolution were generally positive, though some seemed to consider the statement as redundant.

“Wikipedia’s not a citable source,” said Peter Prial '09. “I knew that in high school.”

According to Eliza Murray '08, the burden rests with students themselves to learn the difference between credible and non-credible sources. “There are so many other, more legitimate sources to cite,” she said. “Why would you cite Wikipedia?”

Morsman urged those alarmed with the move to regard the department’s motion as a learning opportunity rather than simply more red tape.

“Go to the source,” she said, referring to the list of suggested texts often found at the end of Wikipedia entries. “Take down that title and trot over to the library and check it out yourself, because we know there’s a good vetting process that goes into producing a book.”

<a href=“http://media.www.middleburycampus.com/media/storage/paper446/news/2007/01/24/News/Wikipedia.Distresses.History.Department-2670081-page2.shtml?sourcedomain=www.middleburycampus.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com[/url]”>http://media.www.middleburycampus.com/media/storage/paper446/news/2007/01/24/News/Wikipedia.Distresses.History.Department-2670081-page2.shtml?sourcedomain=www.middleburycampus.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com</a>

Marian · January 26, 2007, 7:58am

What kind of an idiot would actually cite Wikipedia?

I mean, of course the kids get information from Wikipedia (and so do I), but who would be honest enough to admit it?

micromom · January 26, 2007, 8:07am

asteriskea, I am just as surpsied as you that such a policy is needed at Middlebury ($40,000/year). My community college students know not to cite Wikipedia.

Chedva · January 26, 2007, 8:09am

Kids on these boards cite Wikipedia all the time, for things that they could easily have found (authoritatively) on colleges’ own websites! “If it’s in print and on the Web it must be true.”

garland · January 26, 2007, 8:23am

I’m kinda surprised by this, too. I team teach the course that teaches research paper writing at a college that is a long, long way down the food chain from Middlebury.

We’ve never allowed any encyclopedias as sources, never mind Wikipedia. This seems weird that a place like Middlebury would need to take a “stand” like that.

sly_vt · January 26, 2007, 8:44am

When I taught a research writing class at a community college a couple years ago, my students didn’t think twice about citing Wikipedia or other online sources, even though the library did a presentation on sources for them (some of them didn’t think twice about plagiarism either, but that’s a different issue). My daughter’s school has not addressed this issue as far as I know.

I work in a newsroom and we check Wikipedia on occasion, although we’ve never used it as a source in a story.

Out of curiosity – how accurate do people find Wikipedia to be?

JHS · January 26, 2007, 8:58am

Wikipedia poses some significant issues – it’s not as easy as saying “What kind of idiot would actually cite Wikipedia?” The main problem with Wikipedia is that it’s dynamic – what it says today may not be what it says tomorrow – and that the quality of the articles and their editing varies considerably. So Wikipedia is always something of a suspect source, and any citation should be very specific as to the date (since Wikipedia edits are recoverable, I believe).

On the other hand, especially in scholarly areas where the major topics are effectively written and maintained by very sophisticated people, I find Wikipedia to be extremely helpful and valuable as a tool. One always has to take it with a grain of salt, and to pay close attention to indications that this or that paragraph may be someone’s private axe to grind. But lots of the articles are self-proving: comprehensive, well-supported, judicious. Others can be self-impeaching in equal measure.

Frankly, I would look down on an institution that had a “no Wikipedia” rule. That seems unscholarly and hamfisted to me. In this century, information is going to be found increasingly in this kind of format. I think it’s important that students and scholars understand its strengths and its limitations, and come up with citation conventions (and conventions about use) that reflect its strengths and guard against its limitations.

nceph · January 26, 2007, 9:05am

I’m sort of surprised that Middlebury felt it needed a policy, but then again I’m not so surprised in light of other instances of people who should know better citing Wikipedia. Recently, an attorney for the U.S. government cited Wikipedia as authority in a brief filed in federal court.

It takes very little effort to see how inaccurate information can be inserted into a Wikipedia entry. Sometimes it’s done as a joke, sometimes out of error, sometimes out of deliberate attempt to mislead.

stockmarket · January 26, 2007, 9:09am

I got suckered as I posted a graph illustrating wikpedia. I am a parent. But if information is wrong, why they do not delete misinformation from spreading. The graph I quoted posted, it looks like a blatant lie and does not make sense at all. people who own wikpedia can not delete such a misinformation.

I admit I am wrong to jump and post such as stupid graph

marite · January 26, 2007, 9:10am

I agree with JHS.

Printed sources are not necessarily much more authoritative or error-free than wikipedia entries. But they do not change from day to day. However, I have found lots of scholarly articles posted on wikipedia to be far more up-to-date than some of the print sources (or, to be more accurate, out-of-print sources, since many works are unlikely to be re-published). The drive of publishers to publish only “marketable” works has made the search for reliable sources incorporating newer research more frustrating than ever. Wikipedia can fill a very large hole. But it should be used wit caution.

garland · January 26, 2007, 9:17am

I disagree. New up to date scholarship is available every month in edited, peer-reviewed journals. Even if everything in Wikipedia were accurate, which it is not, it is still a general encyclopedia, which has always been considered in any academic venue i’ve been part of to be a very weak source for an academic paper. Any Wiki article containing worthwhile info cites sources; I would tell the student to go to the source itself, as I would myself.

nceph · January 26, 2007, 9:22am

I certainly consult Wikipedia, but I usually just read it to give me an idea of where to look for information or just to give a very general idea of a topic. I am not comfortable relying on it without some indication of its accuracy, and in a case in which I need to cite something, I look for a link to a more accepted source. Usually if a scholarly sort has authored a Wikipedia article, that same author has published work in a journal or some other publication that is more officially acceptable.

I also think its reliability varies a lot depending on the topic. If one looks up various political figures in it, one can find a great deal of information, but one wouldn’t know if the figure’s supporters or detractors had added the information. If one is looking up something about plants, there may be less risk of a deliberate attempt to adjust the facts. Yes, I know you can find out who edited entries, but it’s not always easy for the average person to determine who the editor really is.

I think Wikipedia is a great concept, but I agree with those who said it needs to be used with caution. I should add that in every history course I can recall, we were not allowed to cite ANY encyclopaedia, not Brittanica or anything fairly standard.

frazzled1 · January 26, 2007, 9:30am

There was a fascinating article in The New Yorker last summer about Wikipedia, how it works, and the problems of scholarship (and other issues) it poses -
<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact[/url]”>Know It All | The New Yorker;

cptofthehouse · January 26, 2007, 9:32am

My kids’ ELEMENTARY school does not allow Wikipedia cites, and limits internet and general encyclopedia cites to force them to go to more original sources. They are permitted and encouraged to start their research at those places but then to take that extra step to go beyond a digest. I can’t believe that a college needs to make this rule. There are circumstances when a quote or cite is appropriate to show the conventional wisdom or opinion of an issue, but it should not be used as primary source a research paper.

marite · January 26, 2007, 9:41am

Garland:

Have you tried finding up-to-date research on, say, Amaravati? Up-to-date scholarly research in science gets published (online, nowadays), but not about fairly obscure topics. the Encyclopedia Britannica has been found not to be any more authoritative than Wikipedia, in some instances.

I agree that wikipedia ought to be a first port of call, not the last. But sometimes, the first and last seem to be the same.

My biggest concern about wikipedia is the unsigned and often unsourced nature of the statements, as well as their lack of stability. But in some cases, in particular in more esoteric areas, I have found the research to be pretty complete and far more up-to-date than what is available in print.

StickerShock · January 26, 2007, 9:48am

Wikipedia would never be allowed as a source at d’s h.s. I think the fact that Middlebury is just now banning it as a reference source makes them look foolish. I’m going to ask at s’s grammar school if Wikipedia is allowed as a reputable source. I suspect that it is not.

I think Wikipedia is a fun site & can point to legitimate sources. But recognizing its lack of credibility is really a no-brainer.

garland · January 26, 2007, 9:58am

Marite–History is not a new major; students taking classes in it have been able to find appropriate information for hundreds of years without last week’s newest thought being necessary. History, literauture, and every other major subject abound with journals which can be used as reliable sources.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which already makes it inappropriate as an academic source. If I have passing interest in something, i would not hesitate to check out the Wiki article with all due grains of salt, but I would embarrass myself if i included it in a scholarly work, and I expect my students to follow the same basic standards.

asteriskea · January 26, 2007, 10:13am

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Garland on this one - wiki is an encyclopedia and as such students ought to be taught, as early as possible, not to rely on it and above all not to think of it as a sole or principle academic source. Certainly, some wikipedia entries are excellent and well-researched and can be used to great advantage as a starting point for further study, or to find other sources, nonetheless, any entry is, by definition, a second or even third hand source - not the stuff that any historian worth his/her salt would use to make or support an argument.

Middlebury College: A Stand Against Wikipedia

CONNECT WITH US