Societal Institutions Law Politics Education and the Military

¶ … Carvin, A. (2008) Wikipedia in the Classroom: Consensus Among Educators? Retrieved October 4, 2009. www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2006/07/wikipedia_in_the_classroom_con.html

The Internet has its advantages and disadvantages. It has greatly increased the amount of information available to people worldwide. At the same time, it has also greatly increased the amount of questionable information disseminated worldwide. As a result, teachers and students alike recognize that it is not always possible to trust online sources. This is even true of Web sites that profess to be "encyclopedias of knowledge" like Wikipedia.

In his article, Carvin writes about his debate with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on how teachers perceive his online resource. Carvin believes that many educators are not that thrilled about the electronic publication, in fact are hostile. Wales, naturally, says he has found the opposite to be true. Who's correct? Actually, those who responded to the controversy are mixed in their opinion about Wikipiedia.

On the whole, the educators said they are not hostile as much as skeptical. Anytime a wide range of authors with myriad backgrounds and levels of experience on subject matter can write articles it can present a problem with consistency and accuracy. Most of the comments, in fact, are compromises. In many cases the teachers say they start their instruction process with Wikipedia, especially if the subject is new to them. It provides a good foundation before going into more depth with a more reputable source.

Most of these Wikipedia commentators do agree, however, that the online encyclopedia can be a great learning tool for students in another respect -- teaching them how to dissect online resources to determine whether or not they are worthy of being scholarly sources. The question is not so much whether Wikipedia or any other online (or offline source, for that matter) is reputable. Rather, it is whether or not students have the skills to analyze a source and recognize if it is reputable.

Shaw, D. (Feb./Mar. 2008) Wikipedia in the Newsroom American Journalism Review, Retrieved October 5, 2009. http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461

Newspaper reporters have a reputation for being just as strict when it comes to accepting sources. Yet overall most newspeople appear to do their best to be responsible reporters and editors. In turns out, according to this article by Donna Shaw, that these reporters are just as mixed about Wikipedia as their fellow educators.

According to Shaw's article, there are newspeople who, like some teachers, find Wikipedia very helpful as well as those who would never trust the information from this source. Look what happened at the Los Angeles Times, for example. The paper ran a story about a professional "man in the street" who was repeatedly interviewed and cited Wikipedia as the primary source. As a result, the Times received testy remarks from testycopyeditors.org, with comments such as "Shame on the Los Angeles Times" and "No, no, a thousand times no."

Regardless, other reporters who were interviewed for Shaw's article purported to use Wikipedia for the same reason that many teachers did -- as a starting gate for their articles. No one quoted, however, seems to use this Internet encyclopedia as his or her only source. All reporters also admit checking out Wikipedia's facts and figures. Similar to any other source, the reporters made sure that the information was correct before it was printed. As one of the New York Times reporters noted: "No matter who your sources are, when you sign your name, you are responsible for every word, every thought, every concept."