At first glance Wikipedia appears professional and accurate. Sources are cited, definitions are thorough, and extensive explanations are given for entries. Wikipedia (2010) labels itself “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” A concept that was impossible just a few decades ago. However, with this freedom comes great risk.
My school district has given teachers autonomy with the use of Wikipedia. This shows respect for the teachers’ professionalism but leaves ambiguous guidelines. Beginning in fifth grade, students are asked to determine the validity of a source. I would prefer that the district had more clarity on the issue, but understand that the purpose of school is to teach the method of researching.
Having anyone alter an encyclopedia can be educational. There is no doubt in my mind that students are more engaged when they publish work, especially when the published work is online. Unfortunately I have seen enough vandalism to become skeptical of most technologies.
Take a look at John Seigenthale (2005). Seigenthale was informed that Wikipedia named him as a temporary suspect for the Kennedy assassination. Upon learning of this he immediately did some investigation by following the IP number from Wikipedia to BellSouth Internet. He filed an Abuse Issue form as is protocol. From there he went in circles with BellSouth ending up at the crossroads of lawyers and subpoenas. In BellSouth’s defense they do have to follow federal privacy laws. And so, Seigenthale was a victim of libel for 132 days on Wikipedia (along with reference.com and answers.com).
The term Truthiness is used in Steven Colbert’s Wikiality episode. Dick Meyers (2006) defined Truthiness as:
In satire, truthiness is a ‘truth’ that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
This captures the essence of Wikipedia. Because anyone can edit the site there are no rules. Isn’t that the definition of chaos? Granted, there are several educated individuals that have nursed the site to its professional level, but the possibility of anarchy is eminent. Steven Colbert (2006) is cited defining Wikiality as:
“together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on.”
This is a scary reality in today’s society. Perception is everything; truth is relative. That is a world in which I do not want to live. In the movie The Mask of Zorro (1998), Alejandro says, “Senorita you have done nothing wrong. The only sin would be to deny what your heart truly feels.” Denying your feelings is sin? So when the police officer asks me why I plunged my vehicle into the one who cut me off I can simple say that it would be a sin to deny my feeling of anger? Something tells me that wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. Truth is real. It is concrete. To deny it would be like denying the laws of physics; trust me, it’s not pretty. And so we come to the crossroads of our Nation today: Truth v. Truthiness. Which do you choose?
Works Cited
Seigenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). A False Wikipedia “Biography.” USA Today. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Colbert, S. (2006, July 31). Wikiality. Comedy Central. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=72347.
Meyer, D. (2006, December 12). The Truth of Truthiness. CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/opinion/meyer/main2250923.shtml. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
Spielberg, S., Parkes, W. F., & MacDonald, L (Producers), & Campbell, M (Director). (1998). The mask of Zorro [Motion Picture]. United States: Tristar Pictures.
Comments (6)
While reading your post, one thing immediately popped into my head at a certain part. You said “Having anyone alter an encyclopedia can be educational. There is no doubt in my mind that students are more engaged when they publish work, especially when the published work is online”. That thought had not previously occurred to me. It is true that students like to take pride in their work. They make ownership of something that they have created. I also agree that seeing their own work online will make them proud and they would want it to be perfection. Publishing their own ideas online would make them not forget that information. This could be an idea that a teacher could incorporate in their learning. Perhaps by making a classroom website that students could publish their ideas and knowledge on. It could be a very educational experience for them. Great thought!
It is also an issue of delayed gratification. Wikipedia is successful with both students and adults because it produces results so quickly. Wikipedia is often too easy. It distracts students from quality because it offers them quantity and speed. Quality work takes time and effort. Wikipedia does open up possibilities for publishing of student work, but it also opens a conversation about the process of creating quality work. What we need to do is teach students to be critical of what they read, from Wikipedia and other sources, because truth is concrete and if they want to produce quality work, that can be published, they have to start with quality information. It is easy to use Wikipedia, and it is easy to believe anything that “looks official,” but we have to teach our students that instant gratification and easy answers are not always going to work in a world that is getting more and more complicated every day.
Beautiful blog (nice design). Well thought-out/reasoned post. Liked this paragraph: “My school district has given teachers autonomy with the use of Wikipedia. This shows respect for the teachers’ professionalism but leaves ambiguous guidelines. Beginning in fifth grade, students are asked to determine the validity of a source. I would prefer that the district had more clarity on the issue, but understand that the purpose of school is to teach the method of researching.” If more administrators/teachers/policy makers had this perspective we could do a lot more with technology in education.
Agreed. My district has done that very well.
Good point on the delayed gratification. We live in such an instant gratification society that we forget how to work.
I like your point about students not forgetting what they publish. It’s amazing how interesting we find ourselves.