First, I wanted to point people to a forthcoming study that suggests that Wikipedia’s growth has slowed dramatically, and that the nature of its community is changing. (See this summary at New Scientist or this, more detailed one, at the project’s blog.) Research into wiki communities is fascinating stuff, and this paper will definitely be worth reading when the 2009 WikiSym proceedings are published.
And, second, any discussion of Wikipedia lets me repeat a point that teachers and students tend to forget all too often: The problem with Wikipedia as a source in, say, a first-year course, isn’t that it’s sometimes inaccurate or incomplete compared to other general encyclopedias. What source isn’t? The real problem used to be that you couldn’t reliably access the page in the state that your student accessed it. Or, you could, but it was a pain, because you’d have to sort through the change log, and who has time for that? It’s 4 in the morning, and the papers are due back by 9am.
Wikipedia thoughtfully introduced a feature a while back that, for my money, is its most underused feature: a permanent link to the current revision of any page. It’s always on the left-hand column, and it does exactly what the name suggests. If you–or your students–are really lazy, you can click the “Cite this page” link right underneath it and get full bibliographic information, plus citations in a variety of formats, ready for copy-and-paste. Beneath the jump, I’ve posted a screenshot with the super-double-top-secret location of these features.
Screenshot powered by Skitch
4 Comments
The other concern I have about citing from Wikipedia in assignments is that it is an encyclopedia. I tell my students that I don’t care that it is online or that it is collaboratively written (almost all encyclopedias are, after all). But general reference sources do not a research paper make, and that’s why the Wikipedia needs to be used with caution.
Brian Croxall, above, is right. In Middle School we were taught that general reference materials make poor sources for research papers. If necessary and encyclopedia can be used to verify a mundane fact: year, geography, name, etc. However, to make meaningful arguments and in depth analysis, Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, will not give a writers the tools necessary to compose a compelling piece. This is the argument instructors should be giving their students against Wikipedia (if they feel the need to make them) not that its not a “good” source, just that it’s not an effective one.
Right–the post is about people who single out Wikipedia vs. other general reference works. (I.e., “it’s ok if you use Britannica, but not Wikipedia.” And I’ve met many people who say this.)
After all, there are many other types of assignments than research papers, and I would hope that students would still cite in them.
I don’t disagree on any particular point.
2 Trackbacks
[...] I generally take two different approaches: First, with all students I encourage the use of tools such as Zotero, to automate the management of references and notes as they work their way through college. That’s more of a long-term solution. And, with all students I emphasize the importance of providing readers an easy-to-read paper and with the ability to follow up on your sources. (This is why my favorite feature in Wikipedia is the “link to a permanent version of this page.”) [...]
[...] to understand how to read discussion pages and history, how to judge the reliability of a page, and how to cite the exact version of the page they looked at. One of the best guides for students on how to use [...]