Middlebury College: A Stand Against Wikipedia

[marite]

<p>Coda to the discussion on citing wikipedia:
From Slate. com</p>

<p>

The NYT points out that since 2004, more than 100 judicial rulings have cited Wikipedia in some form. These citations are frequently for definitions to terms such as “jungle juice” or “booty music,” but the online encyclopedia has also sometimes been used as a source for central facts about cases.

</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Citations of “central facts” used for judicial rulings are one thing and the use of any encyclopedia to conduct academic research is quite another - especially when it comes to history:</p>

<p>

Why Should We Care? Implications for Historians</p>

<p>One reason professional historians need to pay attention to Wikipedia is because our students do. A student contributor to an online discussion about Wikipedia noted that he used the online encyclopedia to study the historical terms for a test on early romanticism in Britain. Other students routinely list it in term paper bibliographies. We should not view this prospect with undue alarm. Wikipedia for the most part gets its facts right. (The student of British culture reported that Wikipedia proved as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and easier to use.) And the general panic about students about students’ use of Internet sources is overblown. You can find bad history in the library, and while much misinformation circulates on the Internet, it also helps to debunk myths and to correct misinformation.52</p>

<p>Yet, the ubiquity and ease of use of Wikipedia still pose important challenges for history teachers. Wikipedia can act as a megaphone, amplifying the (sometimes incorrect) conventional wisdom. As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: “A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the ‘aol’ [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide.” Not only does Wikipedia propagate misinformation but so do those who appropriate its content, as they are entitled to do under the gfdl. As a result, as the blogger John Morse observed, “when you search Google for some obscure term that Wikipedia knows about, you might get two dozen results that all say the same thing—seemingly authoritative until you realize they all spread from a snapshot of Wiki—one that is now severed from the context of editability and might seem more creditable than it really is.” The Web site Answers.com, which promises to provide “quick, integrated reference answers,” relies heavily on Wikipedia for those answers. And Google, which already puts Wikipedia results high in its rankings, now sends people looking for “definitions” to Answers.com. Can you hear the sound of one hand clapping?53
…</p>

<p>Professional historians have things to learn not only from the open and democratic distribution model of Wikipedia but also from its open and democratic production model. Although Wikipedia as a product is problematic as a sole source of information, the process of creating Wikipedia fosters an appreciation of the very skills that historians try to teach. Despite Wikipedia’s unconventionality in the production and distribution of knowledge, its epistemological approach—exemplified by the npov policy—is highly conventional, even old-fashioned. The guidelines and advice documents that Wikipedia offers its editors sound very much like the standard manuals offered in undergraduate history methods classes. Editors are enjoined, for example, to “cite the source” and to check their facts and reminded that “verifiability” is an “official policy” of Wikipedia. An article directed at those writing articles about history for Wikipedia explains (in the manner of a History 101 instructor) the difference between primary and secondary sources and also suggests helpfully that “the correct standard of material to generate encyclopedic entries about historical subjects are: 1. Peer reviewed journal articles from a journal of history; 2. Monographs written by historians (BA Hons (Hist), MA, PhD); 3. Primary sources.”57
…</p>

<p>That the latest article in National Geographic rather than the latest book from Yale University Press shapes Wikipedia entries reflects the fact that Wikipedia historians operate in a different world than historians employed in universities. Although Wikipedia enjoins its authors to “cite the source,” that policy is honored mainly in the breach—unlike in academic historical journals, where authors and editors obsess over proper and full citation. Moreover, the bibliographies offered after Wikipedia entries are often incomplete or out-of-date—a cardinal sin in professional history. Yet Wikipedians are mindful of a wider community of “historians.” It is just that for them the most important community is authors of other Wikipedia entries. And every article includes literally dozens of cross-references (links) to other Wikipedia articles.

</p>

<p><a href=“Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media – Democratizing history through digital media”>Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media – Democratizing history through digital media;

[bethievt]

<p>I think my son learns a lot from Wiki, especially by using the links to other articles. He knows it may not all be 100% accurate, but neither are most history books. He’s someone who is fascinated with the interconnections among people, things, ideas and Wiki is a great tool for explorin those connections and finding new ones. He’s a quiz bowl kind of guy, so every piece of info about anything is grist for the mill. Just a jumping off place, but a good one, imo.</p>

[mini]

<p>“Although Wikipedia enjoins its authors to “cite the source,” that policy is honored mainly in the breach—unlike in academic historical journals, where authors and editors obsess over proper and full citation.”</p>

<p>Doesn’t Doris Kearns Goodwin sit on the Harvard Board of Overseers? :eek:</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Ah, and there were footnotes aplenty. In any case, on the curious art of the footnote I think I would rather read Anthony Grafton anyway. As Eric Foner said “History ought to be good history, whether it’s on TV or in museums or at Disney world.” or on wikipedia or cited in a student’s work.</p>

[mini]

<p>(my thesis at Oxford concerned the use of printed italics, and their effect upon meaning. You don’t want to know…;))</p>

[bomgeedad]

<p>For those who doubt the 1995 College Board SAT Profiles, here is another confirmation from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html[/url]”>http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[calmom]

<p>But what encyclopedia will give you the informative content of an article like this:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Burrito[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Burrito&lt;/a&gt; ?</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Swarthmore history prof. Tim Burke weighs in on the Middlebury Wikipedia story in a blog entry entitled “Wikitedium”</p>

<p><a href=“Wikitedium | Easily Distracted”>Wikitedium | Easily Distracted;

<p>

The folks at Middlebury are perfectly correct to say that students shouldn’t be using Wikipedia as an evidentiary source in research papers. That’s got nothing to do with Wikipedia’s “unreliability”, or the fact that it’s on the web, or anything else of that sort. It’s because you don’t cite an encyclopedia article as a source when you’re writing an undergraduate paper in a history course at a selective liberal-arts college. Any encyclopedia is just a starting place, a locator, a navigational beacon.

</p>

<p>BTW, Burke says that he has assigned Wikipedia entries for one of his courses this year.</p>

[marite]

<p>So is Burke suggesting that the Wikipedia entries he assigned are just starting places? Is he expecting his students to do more research on their own or are students just expected to read those entries?</p>

[garland]

<p>If they’re doing research, the answer to that seems pretty clear.</p>

<p>But then, since this Burke guy is saying exactly what I’ve been trying to say, I guess I would I have to admit that I’m biased! :)</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

So is Burke suggesting that the Wikipedia entries he assigned are just starting places? Is he expecting his students to do more research on their own or are students just expected to read those entries?

</p>

<p>Ha. Burke expects his students to do a lot of reading! I think he assigns a Wiki article when it is is the most appropriate piece of historical writing to lay the next brick needed in the pathway he’s building…</p>

<p>The Wikipedia entry is assigned in his course History 87: Development and Modern Africa. It’s a seminar that meets one a week. The syllabus can be found here:</p>

<p><a href=“History 87 Development and Modern Africa, Spring 2007 | Easily Distracted”>History 87 Development and Modern Africa, Spring 2007 | Easily Distracted;

<p>As near as I can figure, the first week provides an introduction to the historical concept of “progress” with the following reading:</p>

<p>

January 24th
Progress as an Idea</p>

<p>Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress, selection
J.B. Bury, The Idea of Progress, selection
Marshall Berman, “Faust: The First Developer”, in Rahnema, ed., The Post-Development Reader
Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, short selection

</p>

<p>The second week discusses the ideas of progress from 18th and 19th century Europeans:</p>

<p>

January 31st
18th and 19th Century Visions of Progress</p>

<p>Short selections from Condorcet, Turgot, Kant, Smith, Marx, Spencer, and Darwin

</p>

<p>My note: Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the “short selections” from that list don’t consititute light, breezy reading?</p>

<p>And the following week dives into some contrarian views:</p>

<p>

February 7th
Critics of Progress in the Counter-Enlightenment</p>

<p>Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution, selection
Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, selection
Thomas Malthus, Wikipedia entry.
Kevin Binfield, ed., Writings of the Luddites
Darrin McMahon, Enemies of the Enlightenment. Connect to this title electronically in Tripod… Read pp. 18-47.
Neil Postman, Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century, Chapter 2

</p>

<p>The Wikipedia entry is on Robert Mathius, a British political economist who seems to have published major theories of population growth. </p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It looks to me like his theories may be important to understand in the context of the debates over “progress”. and the Wiki article just happens to be a good, consise presentation of his theories and impact. I’m guessing that some of the other readings for that week reference Mathius’ theories. Beats me – Burke’s courses are way over my head. My daughter assures me they are “fun”, though.</p>

<p>BTW, I believe Burke has also argued that the current model of publishing scholarly journals is obsolete and that academic writing should be published on the internet so that it is accessible.</p>

[marite]

<p>Agreed, but then, I don’t understand his assigning wikipedia entries as readings. Presumably, the students will be handling those entries as they do more conventional reading assignments, as the basis of discussions and also as the basis of exam essay answers. In other words, they are considered equally authoritative.</p>

<p>I am not suggesting that a wikipedia entry is the same as a primary source. But not all sources quoted by either students or established scholars are primary. If a prof is going to discourage students from using wikipedia entries in their papers, s/he should not then assign such entries as readings. One way of describing this practice is, ahem, strange.</p>

<p>Crossposted with Interesteddad. It’s not as if there isn’t tons of conventionally published materials about Malthus!</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

Crossposted with Interesteddad. It’s not as if there isn’t tons of conventionally published materials about Malthus!

</p>

<p>But, the question is whether or not there is a conventionally published piece that is as efficient as the Wiki article in the context of presenting “just the facts”. It may well be that the Wiki article is simply serving as the equivalent of a footnote or a definition: a bit of information that is valuable to understand, but tangential to the discussion at hand. It would be hard to know without doing the rest of the reading and seeing where he is going with the discussion.</p>

<p>Why don’t you post a comment on his blog and ask him? I’m out of my league with all the history profs who blog with him.</p>

[marite]

<p>Again, agreed. But that’s how I would see the usefulness of a wikipedia citation in a term paper. If the term paper were about Malthusian economics, then I would expect the student to refer to Malthus’ own writings on the subject, as well as to some of the multifarious critiques and applications of Malthus ideas. But it might not be inappropriate to cite an encyclopedia entry for some basic facts about Malthus’ life.
If the prof thinks the entry is authoritative enough to assign as reading for his class, it ought to be authoritative enough to be cited in a paper.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Actually, Burke answered the question in his blog:</p>

<p>

I’m using Wikipedia this semester where it seems appropriate: to provide quick, condensed background on a historical subject as preparation for a more general discussion. Next week, for example, the students are having a quick look at the Malthus entry as part of a broader discussion of critiques of progress in the Enlightenment.

</p>

[mini]

<p>Hey, at least they’re reading. ;)</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on Malthus replaced a selection from Malthus himself in an earlier iteration of of the syllabus. Burke must have decided that the importance of the Malthus population theory to the flow of the course didn’t justify the length of the selection from the primary source.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Let’s give the guy some credit – he probably read the Wikipedia article himself and decided he liked it – so for purposes of reading assigned by a teacher, he himself had made a determination of its accuracy or usefulness. Given the fact that independent evaluators have shown that Wikipedia entries have a comparable degree of accuracy to Encyclopedia Brittanica - at least on scientific subjects, which is where the inquiry was done – then it certainly makes sense for a prof to utilize it. </p>

<p>I mean… I use Wikipedia for a reference all the time, in terms of my own work. I’m a critical reader & I rarely am using Wikipedia as the sole reference for something important – but for general info it tends to be pretty reliable.</p>

[marite]

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>I absolutely agree. And if it’s okay for a prof to use it, shouldn’t it be okay for his students, too? which is the question that launched this thread.</p>