Wikipedia on the Milgram experiment

¶ … Milgram Experiment" information located at Wikipedia.org, and whether Wikipedia has a place in student research. Wikipedia is often under utilized as a research tool, especially in academia, because anyone and everyone edit it, and the academic world does not consider it a valid reference tool. However, Wikipedia does have many positive aspects, and it is an excellent jumping off point to begin research on just about any subject.

The Milgram Experiment is a notorious psychological experiment used to determine how people react to authority and obedience. In the experiment, a "teacher" worked through a series of simple problems with a "learner." If the learner made a mistake, the teacher would shock them with a gentle "electric shock" (in reality, the learner was in on the experiment and was not shocked), using more electricity with each succeeding mistake. The purpose was to observe if humans would blindly follow the orders to continue the experiment even if they thought they were inflicting pain on the learner. In Milgram's findings, 65% of the teachers did indeed follow directions and inflict the "shocks" all the way to the maximum 450 volts. Milgram wanted to show that a majority of people would simply "follow orders," something that had intrigued him since the Nuremburg War Trials for the remainder of the Nazi soldiers found responsible for the Holocaust. One of the soldiers defense was that he was "just following orders," and Milgram wanted to see if that was conceivable.

The Wikipedia article on the Milgram Experiment is a detailed observation of the experiment, including illustrations of how the laboratory was laid out for the experiment, and even a reproduction of an ad looking for participants in the study. Wikipedia presents the detailed information complete with citations, and a comprehensive list of online articles to learn more about the experiment. The article is comprehensive, uses numerous citations, includes quotes from participants, and is an overall excellent introduction to the experiment. It also offers several different references that would be a great place to find more information on the experiment, along with the links to online references, as well.

Wikipedia is an excellent tool for research, as long as it is not the only tool the researcher uses. Most of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia and its usefulness revolves around the fact that anyone, anywhere in the world, can log on and edit Wikipedia articles. Most people feel this is not a valid reference tool because there is no way to validate the information, except by peer editor review, and that makes it a non-valid research tool. However, Wikipedia does have a team of peer editors that check the articles for accuracy and citations (in fact, they note some missing citations in this article), and they make notations when the article is brief (they call it a "stub"), or when the article does not contain enough viable information or citations. Because of this control, Wikipedia is a valid reference source, as long as the researcher knows what to look for, and backs up the information from other, reliable sources.

Several other articles, books, and magazines discuss the experiment, because it is very well-known. Many of them are not nearly as detailed as the Wikipedia article, or as interesting. One author writes of Milgram himself, "(at the end of his study Milgram remarked that relationship overwhelms content -- what people do is not as important as the 'role' which asks them to do it)" (Levinson). This is an interesting side note to the article, and it indicates just what Milgram thought he was accomplishing with his work. Actually, this quote would help the Wikipedia article by adding the researcher's perspective to the article, something that is missing in it as it stands at Wikipedia. Another writer quotes Milgram as saying, "After witnessing hundreds of ordinary people submit to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that Arendt's conception of the banality of f evil comes closer to the truth than one might dare imagine" (Miller 209). Again, including the professor's own quotes would add depth to the article, but it is entirely acceptable without them -- it still informs and enlightens the reader.

Wikipedia's purpose is to be a transparent and available tool for anyone to use. It is not meant to be original research, and it is not meant to be a stand-alone reference. However, it has some very valid aspects that make it a good research tool. First, it is up to the minute. The Milgram Experiment page was last edited on March 17, only a little more than a week ago, and often the most immediate current events are already on the site when the researcher goes to look for them. Thus, it is much more up-to-date than any comparable print media, which go out of date nearly as quickly as they are printed. It can be updated from anywhere in the world on a moment's notice, and there is a large group of readers and editors who are quite involved in critiquing and editing articles to ensure their authenticity and accuracy.

The site would probably be more academically correct if the editors were experts in their field, professors, or other professionals, and if certain respected academic resources were used as references. It would also help if the authors were experts, drawn from a pool of experts in many different areas. In an encyclopedia, the editors and authors are the top people in their fields, which is another complaint about Wikipedia. Anyone can add anything, so there is not as much control as there is in print media. However, because of the requirement of citations and further reading, the site acts as a wonderful place to begin researching just about any topic. The researcher can get an overview of the topic, find more information, and come to a broader understanding of just about anything by visiting Wikipedia at the beginning of their research project.

The article could use the addition of some insight from the professor himself, but other thank that, it is an accurate article that mirrors the many other articles, journals, and books that discuss the experiments. The most detailed of these articles, from "Psychology Today," magazine, looks at the experiments in today's world, and gives more information on what they actually meant. The author writes, "They demonstrated with jarring clarity that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane" (Blass). While the article does discuss some of the implications of the experiments and what they said about humanity, more of that detail would only add to the article's overall impact and information.