By
Whitney Biaggi
November 5, 2007
There is something irking academics these days, and UW Professor Martha Groom has found herself right in the middle of it.
Most academics don't allow students to use Internet sources like Wikipedia for class assignments and research papers, and most students are somewhat leery of its content. Groom, however, has taken a more proactive approach.
In her Environmental History and Globalization class, students were assigned the task of creating a new Wikipedia article or editing an existing one.
"I was thinking about how to guide students to do a term paper," she said. "It occurred to me that having students post their papers on Wikipedia might be a creative twist on this traditional assignment."
Wikipedia describes itself as a collaborative effort in which volunteers from around the world can post and edit articles with the sole requirement being access to Internet.
Since its 2001 launch, Wikipedia has grown, now controlling more than 8 million articles in more than 200 languages worldwide. The site claims to be "generally as accurate as other encyclopedias" and ranks among the top 10 visited Web sites in the world.
"Because Wikipedia is an open, community-produced work, it allows for some new discussion about scholarship," Groom said.
Students were given a list of potential topics to choose from, but were also allowed to come up with their own.
"Many of the elements that we tell students about in peer reviewed publication exist in the experience of posting to Wikipedia — your writing, citations and the slant that you give an article are all scrutinized by others who may suggest changes," she added.
Though intimidated at first, Groom said that nearly all of her students warmed up to the assignment and thought it had been useful, especially in knowing their work would be available to the world.
"I think they [students] were more careful to consider the types of sources they used, and more scrupulous in citing these sources," she said.
Wikipedia uses peer reviewers — people who sign up to edit articles — to find mistakes and make corrections. Editors, like authors, are also peer reviewed and build their reputations upon approval and accuracy of their work.
In class Groom led citation-based discussions on already existing Wikipedia articles.
"This allowed us to talk about these issues not just in the abstract, and not to solely pull up examples of different quality sources, but rather talk about the effect on the reader of finding articles with verifiable sources," she said.
Wikipedia should be judged by the standards of any other Web source by looking for signs of accuracy, research and verification, Groom said.
Students really understood how important it was to choose sources well, she said, and to make citations visible so others could follow up on an issue if they were really interested.
Though for now Wikipedia may not be changing the face of academia, Groom plans on using her assignment in future classes.
"I found it really did 'raise the bar' for the students, and that they met that added challenge well," she said.
[Reach reporter Whitney Biaggi at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]
3 Comments
#1 david hill
on November 24, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.(Stockport, United Kingdom | Unverified Name)
WIKIPEDIA and all its constituent satellites should be totally banned from major research institutions throughout the world for it provides the means for distortions and untruths to be put in print across the whole globe. This cannot be good for humankind as if people start to believe every word that appears in Wikipedia, they will get things wrong. It is as simple as that, but the consequences could be huge for economies and people.
If you wish to read more I suggest that you get a full insight into Wikipedia and visit http://www.thewif.org.uk/version2/nle...
and go to the bottom of the page.
Wikipedia is run in reality by a bunch of overgrown kids who do not care about those who really count, the people themselves.
Dr. David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland
#2 Linux User 473442
on November 26, 2007 at 8:58 p.m.(Orem, UT | Unverified Name)
Distortions and Untruths? Have you even looked at all the citation that Wikipedia gives? And are you talking about Science articles or the always controversial current event articles? And besides, to many people believe that what they get in there e-mail in-boxes are true anyway so we have nothing to worry about Wikipedia.
#3 celindgren
on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 a.m.(Ponca City, OK | Unverified Name)
Wikipedia is at best garbage. The following remark appeared on Wikipedia - “What I’m seeing is a lot of puffed-up titles with little backing or significance, employment at something one step up from a diploma mill, and no sign of real academic notability (or for that matter real-world notability as measured by major media attention). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)” The ‘professor’ was referring in part to American Military University. AMU has over 30,000 students and is regionally accredited. When does this rubbish stop? I believe this is libel at best. Few academicians ever use Wikipedia. Try looking up the terrible job done on "chivalric orders".
Carl Edwin Lindgren
Post a comment