User:ChristiConnolly/sandbox

Google and Wikipedia as Educational Resources “Google”, the dominant search engine in the U.S, and “Wikipedia”, the user-contributed online encyclopedia are both used widely by students and teachers. These two websites are different ways to find information and sources that can be used or misused to different degrees, due to their innate differences. Both Wikipedia and Google make important contributions to education. With further examination, Google appears to be a less valid source for resources and information to students while Wikipedia is actually the more accurate and sound asset of the two. Google, founded in 1997, is an Internet search engine that allows users to use keywords to find webpages that match these same terms. It uses algorithms based on the number of links to a page to determine an article’s correlation to the topic that the user is searching. It has become widely used by both educators and students for its ability to find relevant sources for any topic. It has also become more educationally relevant with its addition of Google Books that allows users to search within books, and Google Scholar, which allows the user to search within scholarly articles and other educational resources such as court cases. However, it may also lead to biased search results and decreased incentive to publish, negatively impacting students’ attempts to discover information. Google Books, with its use of “snippets”, hurts authors by giving users the parts of the text they need without having to purchase the actual book. Google search results in any form may also give users an incomplete view of a topic by only returning results of the more popular webpages or simply linking to topics only vaguely related to the search. Google Search, when used within Google Books, allows users to search the contents of books as well as webpages. This project has dramatically changed the ability of users to reach content they previously had been unable to find. Because of this function, students are allowed greater access to books, magazines, and other forms of “old literacy”. Larry Page, one of the founders of Google, was very excited about the ability of this project to allow greater access to publications, citing that he had heard in Stanford alone there were over 130 miles of books in the libraries, but students weren’t able to access their contents (Levy 357). Through these new tools, Google is reaching back to older forms of literacy to allow students to continue their education. Google Scholar is also extremely helpful to students. From its own description, Google Scholar “helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research” (“About Google Scholar”). This program allows students to find educationally valid sources more easily and increases the variety of research on which one is able to rely. Rather than encouraging students to rely less on scholarly works, as is often alleged, Google encourages such reliance by allowing students to search for research papers, court decisions, and other similar highly-praised sources. These added sources can help the student reach a deeper view of the topic they are studying rather than being forced to use only books, papers, or webpages. However, the ability to use these sources may lead to negative results. Google Books may infringe on the rights of an author and Google’s ubiquitous legal defense of “Fair Use” may lead to limitations on the “Fair Use” doctrine. These problems may also lead to a decrease in publishing, as authors will be afraid their work will be pirated and only used for free rather than bought. Author’s guilds have protested Google’s actions, asking that their work only be used if they approve (Levy 363). However, these complaints have been widely ignored. Google search results may also be biased or unhelpful, giving a student a non-representative or haphazard list of resources. The algorithms used to find webpages are based on the number of links to a certain page. That simply means that a webpage that is popular, or linked-to, will be given precedence irrespective of its accuracy. Hosts can manipulate the order of search results by linking to a certain page to boost its popularity or having many users search for the same result by repeatedly “Google-bombing”. These tactics have been used to make a site easier to see on Google’s search results or conversely to attack and ruin the reputations of those being searched by connecting the subject’s name with false information (Whitney). This latter tactic is libelous. By enabling students to forego hierarchical search techniques in favor of memorizing keywords, Google makes traditional research more difficult as students do not learn to think hierarchically. Therefore, Google not only may give unhelpful educational resources at the moment, its use can negatively impact the student at later times if they do not use Google to comb through resources. All of these traits lead to a more negative impact on education than may be commonly realized. Although Google has many positive traits, it is currently more negative to education than positive. Rather than inspiring greater initiative in students, it allows them to forego focused searches in favor of simply collecting massive amounts of articles. It also decreases incentives to authors to publish and to users to purchase the resources they need since they can use sections of books available online on Google Books for free. The use of “Google-bombing” both manipulates search results negatively and provides an easy way to harass public and private figures with wild rumors and utter lies that can’t be tracked back to a source. Most importantly, Google’s algorithmic system “trains” its users to use techniques tailored only to this method of searching. As more and more searches are run through Google rather than other methods such as other websites or even traditional “old-literature” research, students become less prepared to use these other methods. As it encourages memorization of key phrases and a lack of experience in hierarchical thinking, Google negatively impacts students’ experiences in other formats. Google may become a helpful and valid way to find research and information, but it has not yet overcome its unfortunate tendency to be abused. Wikipedia (established in 2001) is an open-source reference website that allows anyone to add or delete information. Its users aspire to make it an encyclopedic reference that stays timely with current knowledge and is available to anyone. It is widely used by students with varying approval of educators. Although there are many negatives to using Wikipedia as a valid source, the great number of advantages outweighs these limitations. Wikipedia has fast become a useful resource and helpful collection of information that encompasses many more topics than any previous encyclopedia to great depth. Though Wikipedia is widely criticized for being unreliable, since it does not ask for credentials, it has actually been found by many different sources to be at least equal with the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to errors per subject. According to a study by Nature in 2005, Wikipedia had roughly the same number of errors per article as did the Encyclopedia Britannica (Lih 208). Since this article was published over five years ago, it is likely that the quality of Wikipedia has further improved, making Wikipedia more accurate than the expert-based Britannica. Wikipedia also covers many more subjects than any print encyclopedia since it has unlimited space and author time. The combination of these two advantages would imply that Wikipedia has become a better source for students than traditional references. Detractors often cite the lack of culpability to editors of Wikipedia if they vandalize or otherwise incorrectly edit articles. Users do not have to have an account on Wikipedia to edit, and may add false, biased, or otherwise inaccurate information to the articles. In a famous example, French presidential hopeful Marie-Ségolène Royal praised a historical anti-slavery figure that never existed but was listed on Wikipedia for three years (“Reliability of Wikipedia”). Her incorrect reliance on Wikipedia for this fact negatively impacted her campaign when it came to light. This faux pas may have contributed to her electoral loss to incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. Relying only on Wikipedia as a source can lead to inaccurate information and other problems with education - a reason many schools ban it as a primary source or even its use at all. Although this example was extreme, it is very easy for users or anonymous editors to slightly change information on Wikipedia just enough to be incorrect but not enough to catch the attention of administrators. In another famous case, a Wikipedia administrator, “Essjay” used fictional credentials to win arguments against other users (Lih 195). Although the fictional credentials themselves were arguably immoral, his use of them to give his information plausibility over other users meant that users who may have actually been more knowledgeable on the topics discussed were ignored in favor of Essjay’s “expertise”. Wikipedia is dependent on “good-faith” editing, and as such, is vulnerable to false information and sources. In spite of Wikipedia’s flaws, it is still a useful tool for educators and students alike. The fact that its flaws are more widely publicized than those of other sources makes users continue to think critically rather than blindly accepting possible misinformation. The fact that credible sources and Wikipedia have roughly similar rates of error bespeaks the fact that experts make and publish mistaken information as well. However, these experts are not as routinely questioned by the layperson and therefore it is likely that the user will be more skeptical and internalize more accurate information by continuing to question the source when using Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also quickly corrected when mistakes are found. In a small experiment, PC Pro operatives introduced various errors into articles to see how long they would take to be corrected. The results were surprisingly fast: a change to the name of Jesse James’ mother’s first husband was corrected within a minute (Andrews). Although the famous examples of misinformation above lasted much longer, these examples became famous because they were so egregious. Out of millions of entries, only a few were worth reporting. Its ability to correct itself quickly makes Wikipedia superior to other academic resources that take a minimum of months to make these same changes. Therefore, the positives of Wikipedia usage definitely outweigh the negatives. Although Wikipedia is usually the more criticized of the two websites, as an educational tool, it is actually a greater asset than Google, even though Google is the more widely accepted resource. Wikipedia’s ability to self-correct and reliance on good faith editing is rewarded while Google’s central control has not yet paid off in a way that overcomes its unfortunate effects on results found and papers and books published. Google simply returns results, but this is easily manipulated by the webpage owners and companies featured. Wikipedia encourages critical thinking in the user as a participant of the process rather than simply a receiver of results. In this way, Wikipedia becomes helpful not only as a library but actually a teaching tool itself. Google is simply a distributor of results and discourages critical thinking by allowing the user to easily search within webpages and receive a multitude of results rather than carefully considering what they are attempting to find. Educators should encourage Wikipedia use while discouraging use of Google and its “flat” thinking that requires no consideration of hierarchy.

Works Cited

“About Google Scholar”. Google Scholar. Web. 3 Nov 2012.

Andrews, Stuart. “How Quickly Are Errors Corrected?”. PC Pro. 12 Jul 2007. Web. 3 Nov 2012.

Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.

Levy, Steven. In The Plex. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011. Print.

“Reliability of Wikipedia”. Wikipedia. 3 Nov 2012. Web. 3 Nov 2012.

Whitney, Lance. “4chan Takes Down RIAA, MPAA sites”. CNet. 20 Sep 2010. Web. 3 Nov 2012.