I guess it’s a bit presumptuous to put the word, conversation, in the title of this blog. It is impossible for me to predict which posts are going to generate conversations and which aren’t. Perhaps if I’d included the word, rant, it would stand a better chance. Perhaps, Wikipedia, guarantees it.
So, here’s my problem. I’m working on a fairly major writing project, and I want to include a common phrase. The phrase itself is common enough that it really doesn’t need any support. It’s relevance and reliability as a working point can rest entirely on the momentum of it’s historic acceptance. However, I would like to include in my writing, some information about where the phrase came from — and this is my quandary, because I would like to support this information, to cite a source.
When I refined my search down to its essential elements, I was reduced to 9 hits:
- A blog,
- One training manual,
- One TV program script,
- Two other search tools,
- An undocumented quotes site,
- A Political message board,
- A small-group wiki, and
- The wikipedia
You guessed it.
I want to use the Wikipedia!
..And, I don’t want to use the Wikipedia!
My reasons for wanting to avoid using the Wikipedia as a source for my reference are obvious. Much of this online community encyclopedia is undocumented, including this article. The Wikipedia, from many perspectives, is a social network (this article has been worked by 11 editors). And, to many of the readers of my work, the Wikipedia is automatically suspect.
Yet, of the sources I found, the Wikipedia is the one I want to use. Even though the Wikipedia article is not documented, neither are any of the other sources. But, for all of the other sources, there is no evidence at all of any attention to quality. The Wikipedia article has been scrutinized and edited 23 times in the last year, four times in the last month. 61% of the edits were by registered Wikipedia editors. The wikipedia reference is consistent with all of the other sources.
Perhaps the most important question is, “What does it matter?” What happens if the Wikipedia is wrong. In this case, nothing. The linch pin of my argument is the phrase itself, which, as I said, carries the weight of its own historic common acceptance — more than 600,000 hits on Google. If the reference to the source of the phrase is wrong, then nothing really happens to my argument.
I think that this might be an important/essential question to ask in selecting a supporting source to cite — “What happens if it’s wrong?”
So, what do you think?
P.S.
Do you have these conversations in your classroom?
As a high school French teacher, I sometimes have my students do some research on the cultures of the world that speak French. When I take the students into the library/lab, more often than note, the students go to Wikipedia FIRST for their research. Some others go to Google, but then one of the first hits from their Google search is the Wikipedia. Although my school librarian often pulls out books that relate to the specific research assigned, students rarely, if ever, go for the books. I have had conversations with my students about Wikipedia and how it is editable by the world and therefore some entries may be more trustworthy than others. However, I use it extensively myself and I do accept it as a source for my students’ projects.
I do have these conversations in my classroom. Usually it stems from a student who is telling me that Wikipedia is always wrong…because one of their teachers has told them that. And then I am the one telling them to really look at certain entries. I want them to really look at who has contributed to the article. I personally think that Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for students to use. I find it to be a great starting point for searches. I usually get other ideas of keywords to use when searching and I get clues of other things to read about. The key is for students to understand how Wikipedia really works. Your blog entry is a great example of how it works (I’m actually going to use it with my students…thank you very much).
Perhaps these are conversations that teachers should be having as well.
I think the first rule of thumb is to do what your heart tells you, and to quit worrying about what others think.
I agree with Pamela’s comment; the key is for students to understand how Wikipedia works and your use of Wikipedia is a great example. The Media Specialist at my school is one of those people who thinks that Wikipedia is always wrong. I tried to have a conversation with her about that one day and she insisted there was nothing good about it and that all Media Specialists feel that way. I do teach my students about Wikipedia – it’s not all good, but it’s not all bad,either.
I think that this observation of Pamela’s comment is important. I find it interesting, because to understand how the Wikipedia works, I think it’s important to understand that it is very much a social network — something that the kids kinda understand, but probably don’t know how to talk about.
It’s also interesting that to approve of the Wikipedia is to approve of social networking — to approve of our students outside-the-classroom information experience.
I heartily concur! As a HS Media Specialist, I value the conversations that evolve from my classroom media orientations – we discuss how many search tools work (i.e., MLK Google example, Wikipedia, online subscription databases). It is fun to see them balance the pros and cons of various resources and determine value in both their “school” life and personal/social life! We also have eye-opening discussions about copyright, fair use, and the increasing use of creative commons – sure beats the “how to use a card catalog” too! 🙂
Dave:
I had the conversation with the teachers in my district about Wikipedia and got slammed… wait, not slammed, but a few raised eyebrows and one flame mail. I wrote a blog post during the summer titled “My Wikipedia Education,” in which I created a term, “EdTech Bloggerati” to describe the group of people that are creating the current trends in educational technology, I even used you, Will Richardson, Miguel Guhlin and others as examples of the term. (http://edtechvalley.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-wikipedia-education.html) As you can imagine, the people watching Wikipedia, quickly brought it into question (which was my underlying point…) and after a few days deleted the article.
I sent the article out to all the teachers in my district(400)via the list serve and received a few flames for it, but the flames were from people who missed the point. The point is that Wikipedia may not be the ‘ultimate source’ but it is a source that has a great deal of credibility because of the community of users constantly refining it.
When I do trainings and the issue of Wikipedia comes up, I use the phrase, “Wikipedia is not the ultimate source, but it definitely a good place to start.”
Kyle, I agree with you, and your phrase about the Wikipedia being a good place to start makes a lot of sense. I think I’ve said the same thing, though probably not so clearly or succinctly.
What I would like to follow it with, in a staff development or in a language arts class is, “When might we consider the Wikipedia the ultimate source? ..under what circumstances?”
This post, by Ruminate, is definitely worth the read. It’s perspective is at a fairly far end of the spectrum of this issue, and I would take exception with the implication that books and journals are as unvetted as he/she implies, but the position makes a lot of sense — when said out loud. Thanks!
Reading this one made my head hurt 😉
It’s a good question, is it THE Wikipedia, or just Wikipedia? — and how does it matter?
What especially impressed me was the way that the author used Google searches to look for the frequency of the usage of The Wikipedia. I’ve used the technique before, but never seen it written about.
BTW, according to Word of the Day (http://wordsmith.org/words/), Sprachgefuhl means…
“If you have Sprachgefuhl, you have an ear for idiomatically appropriate language.”
[…]Reading David Warlick today pondering the use of Wikipedia as a source of information for a piece he’s writing, it occurred to me that the English language obliquely suggests the ambivalence that he feels regarding it’s usage…. The use of the article the in front of Wikipedia versus omission of that article seemed to me just then to speak to the question of Wikipedia’s status.[…]
I would not waste my students’ time mincing around the actual phrase in question. It is pretty difficult to evaluate what you’re talking about without that piece of information.
David,
You ask: “Do you have these conversations in your classroom?”
My tech class here in Taiwan has a Moodle forum dedicated to this very stuff. I’ve linked to your post within our site. 46 high school students will now read your thoughts over the coming days and discuss this.
If you’d like to join the conversation, please let me know and we’ll get in touch. It would be our pleasure to have you join us!
So what is the phrase anyway?
I agree when working as a teacher I want all my references and ideas I communicate to be correct. But, looking back on the history of knowledge and human history in general we will find that there has been times when the common, collective knowledge was incorrect. I am refering to pre Christopher Columbus when the world was thought to be flat or pre Gallileo when the earth was thought to be the center of the universe, or more relevant prior to the invent of the printing press when most knowledge was distributed via the church or town crier. Wikipedia is our town crier, I think with all the attempted edits that you have mentioned it would seem that the community has made a good effort to get the information correct. I would use the reference with a disclaimer that the opportunity is there for a revision should the claim be inaccurate. After all should the future of our knowledge be suddenly disturbed by the appearance of space aliens who prove universal population and the true creators of humankind every textbook would be instantly proven inaccurate. Common sense is common sense because it has not been proven otherwise to be nonsense. I think my last statement is the mission of Wikwipedia and with so many hits per day how can it be wrong.
The fundamental premise of this post doesn’t actually make any sense. This kind of thinking is a key weakness in David’s work:
“The phrase itself is common enough that it really doesn’t need any support. It’s relevance and reliability as a working point can rest entirely on the momentum of it’s historic acceptance.”
As far as I’m concerned, this just doesn’t cut it. I read texts critically. When I read Redefining Literacy for the 21st Century I hit the second sentence, “Our world is changing more rapidly than ever before…” and stop. Is this true? Maybe, but it requires some historical support. Has the world changed more between 2001 and 2007 more than between 1939 and 1945? Are we talking about a period of years or decades? Have there been more changes between 1987 and 2007 than 1880 and 1900? This is not a slam dunk. It requires evidence. I know by the second sentence of the book I’m dealing with an author prone to unsupported assertions.
Also, David makes it very unclear whether or not he wants to cite Wikipedia as the source of the phrase (or its meaning) or as a source referencing some other origin of the phrase. It is really hard to understand what he’s talking about without knowing this.
Also, it seems extremely likely to me that if David had simply asked “What is the origin of this phrase?” someone reading this blog would know the answer. I don’t understand why David wouldn’t take that route.
I read over this thread wondering if anyone would mention using Databases. I have been blogging about a podcast that I heard (Teachers teaching Teachers) where I think Joyce Valenza passionately gives support for the use of Databases for some research. I wonder what she would say to this? Here is a link to Joyce’s Voice Thread about Databases.
http://voicethread.com/view.php?b=4799
I had written a post about trusting wikipedia (http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=2193) just before reading David’s rant. Basically, my conclusion is that no, it doesn’t matter, either to David and his proposed entry (what is the phrase?) or to our students. IF we’ve taught them how to validate information. That’s a big if, of course. More in my follow up rant: http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=2194
How about looking up your phrase on http://www.worldwidewords.org ?
The guy who maintains it has a weekly column in the Daily Telegraph, authored books on language, and frequently dispenses advice to the people at Oxford English Dictionary.
You can’t get much more reliable than that! 😀
It’s not “the Wikipedia”. ‘Wikipedia’ is a proper name, like Stephen or London or Iraq. You just say ‘Wikipedia’. As in, “I want to consult Wikipedia.” Just like, I “I want to help Iraq.” And not “I want to help the Iraq.”
I think there’s a difference between using information from wikipedia and citing wikipedia as an authority “to support… information”.
In the former case, critical reading is called for. We need to ask “do I believe this – this website or newspaper report or religious text or scientific paper?” and, more importantly, “why?” A useful exercise to practice in classrooms.
In the latter case,the context usually provides a guide to what will, or will not, be deemed an acceptable source. The King James version of the bible, for example, is deemed an excellent source in some contexts, and not in others. So… what’s the context? Who are the readers? How will peer-reviewers feel about this or that source? In other words, does the “authority” you cite hold any “authority” for them?
Helping learners understand that – identifying the cultural context of authorities (or which authorities are appropriate to which contexts) – is an even more important matter if we are to help them learn to express themselves and be heard in life’s various forums.
Fantastic post / question.
I agree very much with what Wendell just said but I would claim that most sources you have to question to some level no matter what the source. Wikipedia has its eccentricities that causes it not be be sufficient as “the source” but it’s still a great place if you were trying to cite the general meaning / usage of a term. And it’s a great place to cite when there isn’t an accepted authority on a topic. After all, in those cases, what is the “truth” – or how much truthiness is there in the Wikipedia article vs. other authorities who have differing opinions?
One thing that I would add is that I believe there’s tremendous opportunity to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to teach about exactly these issues. You can find a post on my blog about this:
A Fourth Grader Wikipedia Update