Contents 1 Why, when and how should we use Wikipedia as an information source in the classroom 1.1 Wikipedia & Google: Siamese Twins 1.2 What we have noticed 1.3 Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia 1.4 A modest Proposal 1.4.1 Your instructor is your first reference source 1.4.2 Scurry through the dedicated online databases before you go to the Internet 1.4.3 Use the Internet sparingly and look at a number of sources simultaneously 1.4.4 Check several other sources before you go to Wikipedia 1.4.5 What to do when using Wikipedia (specifically)

Why, when and how should we use Wikipedia as an information source in the classroom

By --Dr. Sorin A. Matei, Associate Professor, Dept. of Communication, Purdue University

Students love Wikipedia. Convenience and deadlines remembered at the last minute conspire with immense success in making undergraduate students avid consumers of wiki content. Professors fight their pupils’ addiction with stern grading policies bolded, underlined or italicized in the syllabi. Remarks about Wikipedia’s lack of accountability and questionable accuracy pepper office hour conversations. The History Department at Middlebury College went as far as to completely ban Wikipedia as a source for academic papers submitted by students in fulfillment of their class requirements. Alan Liu, a professor of English at UC Santa Barbara proposes a semi-ban, which limits Wikipedia use in the classroom drastically.

Wikipedia & Google: Siamese Twins

Still, Wikipedia keeps ballooning in size and with it comes higher ranking in Google searches and increased popularity across university campuses. A research project by Jure Cuhalev claims that both Google and Yahoo! favor Wikipedia articles when delivering their search results. Eight out of 10 searches on Google will bring up a Wikipedia entry among the top 10 search hits. More importantly, Wikipedia’s ability to fill in the blanks for any topical issue is truly unique and seems to be one of the most important factors for its success. For example, during the 12 – 14 February, 2007 week, right after the Anna Nicole Smith's death, the former Playboy's centerfold Wikipedia entry was the second most popular Wikipedia page, accessed on an average of 130,000 times per day (by a factor of 10 greater than most top 100 pages accessed on Wikipedia during that week).

In the face of its huge popularity, can educators do anything about Wikipedia’s creeping role in the marketplace of ideas? Can it serve a legitimate education purpose?

What we have noticed

I have explored these issues in collaboration with students enrolled in the classes I teach at Purdue: COM 632-On line interaction and COM 435-Emerging Communication Technologies during the Spring semester of 2007.

We have learned that despite its claims of “neutrality” the political and social options of a small group of Wikipedia users (about 1000, or less than 1% of its entire user base) heavily influence, either by direct textual contribution, or by editorial changes of existing text, the manner in which some ideas are emphasized at the expense of others. Wikipedia seems to favor, according to its founder, Jimmy Wales, a libertarian-left take on many social and political issues, although a profusion of other creeds and ideologies have camped out on the site that “anybody can edit.”

We have also learned that Wikipedia articles are far from being equally and collectively edited by all those interested in a topic. Rather, small groups of roving editors “patrol” specific topics, reverting or disputing the changes made by those they consider to be “outsiders.” According to the same Jimmy Wales, as of last year, .7% of Wikipedia users (approximately 500 individuals) are responsible for half of the editorial changes made on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has around 1.5 million registered members. Finally, Wikipedia topics are in a constant shift and in a continuous process of growth. Entries go through various phases of emphasis, today leaning liberal, tomorrow conservative. Furthermore, these phases leave traces in the entry like geological eras do in a the limestone layers exposed by weather in the cliffs of an ancient mountain.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia

Our conclusion, convergent with Alan Liu's, is that while Wikipedia provides a lot of useful and intriguing information, which often is hard to gather with any kind of expediency, it cannot be a one-stop-shop research experience. The main reason is that Wikipedia is not a “true” encyclopedia. Its content is cobbled together from existing sources of varying degree of credibility and accuracy, which is verified or analyzed only for its relative fitness with the existing narrative of a specific topic, not for its intrinsic value and accuracy. Wikipedia is, in fact, a hybrid between a search engine, an information directory, a discussion forum, an entertainment device, and a hobby club. It is, for a lack of a better term, a roadshowpedia created by an adhocracy of enthusiasts and Sunday painters. Its value resides in the fact that it can offer something (often timely and clearly) for nothing. And most importantly, it

offers something when barely anything else is available to the hurried researcher.

A modest Proposal

In view of this, Wikipedia can be used in the research process, but only at its beginning and only under the shadow of several caveats. It should be used in a manner similar to that in which we use search engines, as a springboard for further research and edification. It is my stated policy in all the classes I teach that Wikipedia cannot be cited as an authoritative source or as a primary source because, like many other reference materials, it is not the place where the information was originated. Wikipedia claims to have (or it tries to enforce) a policy that prevents untested or hypothetical knowledge from being published on its pages. Yet, Wikipedia itself clearly states on the pages that are called up by the “cite this article” link that Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research. To alloy us, the worried educators, it also announces the occasional student visiting the page that “Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information — citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade.” [1]

So, what should we do when we accept the obvious, which is that Wikipedia is here to stay and that our students need more than point reduction for using Wikipedia? What should we tell them about how to use it? What critical methods of information validation and citation should they (we) use? The rules might help students (and not only them) in more productively and using Wikipedia and us, their educators, in finding middle ground in an era of exploding user generated information:

Your instructor is your first reference source

Do not start the research process on the Internet or with Wikipedia. Start it with setting an appointment with your instructor. He or she is your main information guide and tutor. The conversation might take a little longer than it takes to tap a few keys, but there are some net advantages. The instructor can help you clarify what it is it that you are looking for (sometimes the real challenge is not to write a paper, but to figure out what you want to write about). He or she can suggest a specific question, approach or topic that deserves further investigation. He and she can point you to certifiable sources (books, articles, reports) and if you are lucky you might even get free copies from his personal library or file cabinet. (Don’t forget to return them!).

Scurry through the dedicated online databases before you go to the Internet

After a conversation with your instructor search for more literature on a major article database provided by your institution (ProQuest, AcademicSearch, Lexis-Nexis). They are not just very powerful and accessible search engines, they are also excellent filters of information. Information can be easily sorted by topics, subjects and time. Many of the papers are peer reviewed or vetted by highly qualified individuals and institutions.

Use the Internet sparingly and look at a number of sources simultaneously

Now you can switch to the Internet (and note that I am not yet saying “Wikipedia”). Look up answers to your, by now specific questions. Use keyword queries that address concrete, rather than broad issues. This way you avoid letting Internet taking over your research process. Start with a search on a search engine, such as Ask, Google, Yahoo, or MSN Life.

There are good chances that a Wikipedia answer will pop up immediately, but like a good hunter, you know that you do not what to foreclose your other options too soon. Many of the search results listed abreast with that luring Wikipedia entry will probably contain a lot of interesting and possible better referenced information.

Check several other sources before you go to Wikipedia

Visit all the top pages you find through the search and always leave Wikipedia for one of your last choices. Many of the non-Wikipedia links might lead to pages published by very well respected academic, governmental, corporate or non-profit organizations. You do not want the way in which information is packaged or emphasized on Wikipedia to slant your vision of that particular topic from the very beginning.

What to do when using Wikipedia (specifically)

When you finally start looking at a Wikipedia page, in addition to reading the content and deciding how relevant is for your needs, do the following quality checks:

1. Are there any spelling or grammar mistakes in the page? If there are, the intrinsic quality of the content might be questionable as well and you should consider not using that entry at all.
2. Are there any sources cited in text, especially where you encounter value-statements (China is on of the few remaining and authentic popular democracies)?
3. Does the article mention in its brief introductory definition all the salient and well known features of a phenomenon (e.g. Does the article on Fascism mention this movement's intrinsic anti-Semitism? Does it mention the Holocaust? Does the article on Communism mention class warfare? Does it mention the Soviet Gulag? By the way, do they?)
4. Is the page “protected” or does Wikipedia label it as “controversial”? In either case, a note is posted to this effect in the header of the entry. This is a strong indication that the topic has created a lot of conflict and debate among the Wikipedia users and visitors. When a page is protected, no new changes can be operated by ordinary users, which means that the latest version, or the version agreed upon by a very small number of Wikipedia administrators has become the “official” one. In many of these cases, although the facts are not necessarily inaccurate, the interpretation might be slanted one way or another.
5. Even if the page is not labeled as “controversial” or if it is not “protected,” always check its background to see if it is the result of consensus or if it is a reason for conflict among the users. Conflict can be identified by clicking on the “History” or “Discussion” tabs, both found in the upper part of all Wikipedia pages. When clicked, the “History” tab takes you to a list of all the changes a page has been through and of all the users that have contributed to that page. Each entry has a date and a caption, specifying when and the reasons why the edit was operated. Entries also include a link, which shows what the page looked at the time when it was published. What you would like to check for are any mentions of disagreements between users and the precise nature of these disagreements. The Discussion tab will bring up a page of comments and discussions about the content of the page posted by the users who have contributed to is or have visited it. The longer and the more intricate the arguments, the more likely the page is a product of conflict. Page that are the product of conflict are more likely to make problematic claims and to be less trustworthy.
6. Even if you find the entry relatively well written, uncontroversial and consensus based, you always want to check the sources for most major statements, factual or non-factual. Wikipedia entries very often offer footnotes and links to other entries or to external sources in support of their claims. Always check these sources, sometime even before you finish reading an entry in its entirety. You will not only be able to check its value and accuracy, but you will be able to find out the original (primary or secondary) sources of information the entry is based on.
7. When checking the sources, give more credence to institutional pages and formal publications of recognized academic, research, education or scholarly institutions (universities, academic publishing houses, journal sites, etc), followed by governmental statistical and/or research sources, followed by corporate sites and followed by personal webpages. Bulletin boards, blogs and online anonymous sources should rarely be cited as “original” sources. They almost always make reference to other sources (just like Wikipedia) and those sources should be checked and cited directly.
8. Finally, you have finished your research process and are happy with the information that you have identified with the help of your instructor, through other web-based resources, and via Wikipedia. In most situations, Wikipedia is just one manner to find out about a much vaster universe of knowledge. In your paper you should cite all the sources, including the Wikipedia entry. You should cite as primary and most important materials the sources cited by the Wikipedia entry, not the entry itself. You should, however, mention in the text that the sources where identified through Wikipedia and you should provide a citation for it.
9. When citing a Wikipedia entry always click on the link in the left sidebar labeled “Cite this page”. Never use the URL you see in the address box. Keep in mind that if your research stretches over a period of days, or even hours, the version of the page is likely to change and you should always cite the latest version you looked at. The generic URL does not provide you this information. When you click “Cite this page,” however, a new page will come up providing you the full bibliographic information necessary to cite that page, in a variety of standard formats (APA, MLA, etc.) The information will include the title of the entry, the date (including minutes), and the Page ID. The latter is of great importance and you should always mention it. On the other hand, if all you need for the version you are looking at is a specific URL, click “Permalink” link in the sidebar. This will provide a URL in the taskbar connecting to the version of the page you are looking at. Keep in mind, however, that this permalink is different from version to version, and that today’s Permalink is not identical to yesterday’s or tomorrow’s.