Wikipedia banned as a resource on University

[Menydh]

A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source

New York Times
February 21, 2007

When half a dozen students in Neil Waters’s Japanese history class at Middlebury College asserted on exams that the Jesuits supported the Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan, he knew something was wrong. The Jesuits were in “no position to aid a revolution,” he said; the few of them in Japan were in hiding.

He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though incorrect, information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online encyclopedia, and the students had picked it up cramming for his exam.

Dr. Waters and other professors in the history department had begun noticing about a year ago that students were citing Wikipedia as a source in their papers. When confronted, many would say that their high school teachers had allowed the practice.

But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the last straw. At Dr. Waters’s urging, the Middlebury history department notified its students this month that Wikipedia could not be cited in papers or exams, and that students could not “point to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors.”

With the move, Middlebury, in Vermont, jumped into a growing debate within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia itself has restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because of repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said.

Although Middlebury’s history department has banned Wikipedia in citations, it has not banned its use. Don Wyatt, the chairman of the department, said a total ban on Wikipedia would have been impractical, not to mention close-minded, because Wikipedia is simply too handy to expect students never to consult it.

At Middlebury, a discussion about the new policy is scheduled on campus on Monday, with speakers poised to defend and criticize using the site in research.

Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of its foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, “I don’t consider it as a negative thing at all.”

He continued: “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, either.

“If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I would be laughing. They might as well say don’t listen to rock ’n’ roll either.”

Indeed, the English-language version of the site had an estimated 38 million users in the United States in December, and can be hard to avoid while on the Internet. Google searches on such diverse subjects as historical figures like Confucius and concepts like torture give the Wikipedia entry the first listing.

In some colleges, it has become common for professors to assign students to create work that appears on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia’s list of school and university projects, this spring the University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio will have students edit articles on topics being taught in courses on the Middle East and ancient Rome.

In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the graduate students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography project, posted on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources like libraries, reference books and newspapers. With 16 contributors, including the professor, the project comprises dozens of articles, including 13 on different Japanese dictionaries and encyclopedias.

In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in contact with experts who improved their work and whom, in some cases, they were later able to interview.

“Most were positive about the experience, especially the training in writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize is not an easy matter,” Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message. “Many also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia itself.”

The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history department of introducing “the beginnings of censorship.”

Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior majoring in economics, said students “understand that Wikipedia is not a responsible source, that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted.” Yet he said, “I personally use it all the time.”

Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the pro-Wikipedia side in the campus debate. “The message that is being sent is that ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional knowledge,” he said. “I see it as an opportunity. What does that mean for traditional scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose value?”

For his course “Media Technology and Cultural Change,” which began this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create a podcast and produce a blog for the course.

Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department, said, “I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a starting point.”

And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as supporting the Shimabara Rebellion.


[source]

[Strengthandhonour]

I think wikipedia is a good site for getting the main idea of something, but not for serious research. My university does not allow wikipedia to be cited as sources for papers or any research of any type.

[Caesar Princeps]

I did quote Wikipedia for my high school final exam research, but I actually only took Wagner's Biography and List of Works and Lang's Biography and Filmography, i.e. just plain informations.
On the other hand, it anyway links to a number of different, more scientifical links, which can be used as sources.
All sources however should be carefully assessed when used.

[svin]

Wikipedia is not scientific resource, it's a collection of oppinions. Information can be deleted/added by anyone. Of course it's useful, but not in serious research, maybe a good starting point.

[Strengthandhonour]

Lately I noticed they are becoming very restrictive about the type of editing they are allowing. I know the creator of wikipedia is facing several number of lawsuits. Some claim that the site could be gone by the end of the year. Svin is right, it's not a scientific resource, I think it's more of a tool for fun and perhaps to be pointed into the right direction.

[Erasmus]

An alternative resource:

Main Page - Uncyclopedia

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

Lately I noticed they are becoming very restrictive about the type of editing they are allowing. I know the creator of wikipedia is facing several number of lawsuits. Some claim that the site could be gone by the end of the year. Svin is right, it's not a scientific resource, I think it's more of a tool for fun and perhaps to be pointed into the right direction.

I would be sad if Wikipedia disappeared, because it is not all that bad. I got first-nad informations about many things through Wikipedia.

Of course, as you and svin pointed out, it is an extremely good source to get the general idea, to get the firts information on something, but it needs to be checked afterwards, in the real literature.

But Wikipedia can become an extremely dangerous tool if you take it as a serious encyclopedia or as you take for granted any information this site offers. I would say, it can become very dangerous when used by lazy people, those who don't want to read books, out of laziness, but prefer this easy on-line resource in doing their research on anything.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by prometheus

But Wikipedia can become an extremely dangerous tool if you take it as a serious encyclopedia [...]

Encyclopedias are already dangerous tools when taken for anything beyond a preliminary reference. All that wikipedia has done is to increase the level of risk times the ignorance or the bias of their editors.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Encyclopedias are already dangerous tools when taken for anything beyond a preliminary reference. All that wikipedia has done is to increase the level of risk times the ignorance or the bias of their editors.

When it comes to information, only paper, papyrus and stone artefacts should be trusted. I was disconcerted-astounded to be aware of the info that I just have been familiarized with up over here. Using internet for intellectual work is like heavy smoking for to strong heart and fresh breath in mouth.
Wiki is only for reading-education entertainment for childrens and retards.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

When it comes to information, only paper, papyrus and stone artefacts should be trusted. I was disconcerted-astounded to be aware of the info that I just have been familiarized with up over here. Using internet for intellectual work is like heavy smoking for to strong heart and fresh breath in mouth.
Wiki is only for reading-education entertainment for childrens and retards.

I disagree. As I said, Wikipedia is good to get first information on something. On Wikipedia you can sometimes find even titles of books to read, ie. the further reference. Taking a look at Wikipedia's article on something can be the first step. It is not serious research yet. After you found some basic facts and literature, you go further, read books and articles from periodicals. At the end you get the real and complete picture...

But I have also an opinion that Wikipedia should not be quoted. It is an utter absurdity to actually quote this so extremely unreliable source in any serious article. Whenever I see any scientific article that has too many references to internet, and especially to Wikipedia, I tend not to see this article as something having a real scientifical value.

Only as a first, preliminary step...

[Caesar Princeps]

I agree. You should rather quote the sources referred to for that infos, since Wikipedia articles often report their sources.

[Menydh]

The way I see it, wikipedia is as good as a reference as kempipedia. Any idiot can pretend to become a source reference. A sign of the times..

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The way I see it, wikipedia is as good as a reference as kempipedia. Any idiot can pretend to become a source reference. A sign of the times..

Kempipedia is a reference on what? On paedophilia, on White Nationalism or on White Trash-ism?

[wilpuri]

Being able to utilize wiki is up to the user. Smart people, who can take into account each individual article, what views are supported by what parties and so on, can easily interpret and discern a lot of information. Someone less capable will not be able to use wikipedia because they are not able to discern and interpret.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

An alternative resource:

Main Page - Uncyclopedia

Indeed, I prefer Uncyclopedia to Wikepidea. Much more reliable source than Wiki.