User:RM395/Course/Week 07

==On the first day of class, several people brought up the fact that they have repeatedly been told not to use Wikipedia by teachers/educators. If you were teaching a class (you can decide which class), what would you tell your students? Base your answer not on what you feel is the "correct" answer in the context of this class, but on what you would really do given your own educational, practical, ethical, and/or epistemological values.==

Yes
I say yes with the stipulation that you said I get to decide the class, otherwise I would say it depends on the class. The class I would be teaching would be a religious studies class. The point of the class is to get them to think for themselves and support their points with good reason. Wikipedia would be a good source for something like background information about a theologian, or even quotes from a theologian. I might have felt differently before taking this class and learning how rigorous the process is to make a wikipedia article. While it is true that anyone can post anything, which is what I've always heard, that's not the whole story. It's much more complicated than that, and so now I am convinced that it is a reliable enough source for the needs of my religious studies class. If I as teaching a research methods class it would not be a valid enough source. Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed for anything that is being published, or related to research.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting Point
Even though I do believe Wikipedia has pretty reliable information, I would find it very hard as a teacher to condone the sole use of Wikipedia as a source. However, what I would definitely do is encourage my students to start with Wikipedia. It's a great place to get background information, summaries and just a general idea of what one is about to research. I trust basic, general information from Wikipedia, but I am more wary of really technical and complicated information. I trust more people to be knowledgable about general information and thus more able to peer edit. Therefore, I would accept Wikipedia as a "sources consulted" but not a "sources cited."--Eems.p (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is very similar to what I would tell my students. I would let them use it to get the basic facts, but not the more specific details. Basic facts tend to be what you are looking for in a "starting point" so I think our ideas go hand in hand. Kslinker5493 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also would tell my students to use it as a starting point. It's a very good place to get a general grasp of a topic, but I would also warn them to be wary of the information on the wiki, since anyone can edit it. I would recommend them to check the references that the page uses in order to make sure the information is correct. But if they were writing a paper for me I would not allow them to cite it, since, like what Professor McGrady was saying, you are not suppose to cite encyclopedias in the first place. --MangoDango (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way I could see letting my students use Wikipedia would be as a starting point, as you said. There really is no way to prevent your students from using it, and considering I use it to start research myself and to get a grasp of the topic at hand, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't allow them the same. As you said, the general information available on Wikipedia seems more credible and subjected to many stages of peer edits, so that kinda thing seems more acceptable to allow, rather than using specific pages or all of wikipedia.--Tabbboooo (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I might advise my students to use Wikipedia as a starting point, but also encourage them not to stay on the page for too long, lest they try to complete their research in the same manner of the authors of a particular Wikipedia article. One of my favorite things about research is that it often takes me on wild tangents that I never expected, and I wouldn't want to rob my students of that. So while I think that a Wikipedia article can be a good starting point, I'd tell my students to get the gist and then get out. --Katerwaul (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also advise my students to use Wikipedia as a starting point. I think Wikipedia would allow the students to gather general information on their topic. Then they could use that general information to do more in depth research on the topic. That in depth research is what I would expect to be written in a paper not the general information presented on Wikipedia. Also when looking at a topic on Wikipedia it allows for students to easily find information on ideas that are connected to there topic because the other information is just a imbedded link to another Wikipedia page. This ease of access to information would hopefully get my students to explore there topics more and become more interested in them. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm on board also with Wikipedia as a starting point -- at least as a potential starting point. Often a Wikipedia article will give you a good overview of a topic and point you to some references that could serve as real resources for an academic project. However, I have noticed that the quality of resources listed can be uneven. Sometimes the references can be a little "lazy" -- just pointing to an online article or blog post that has something to say about the topic. So it's a good idea for students to use Wikipedia with some degree of caution.--Brodmont (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the Class
What I have found in my use of Wikipedia is that the pages devoted to science and math tend to have very straight forward information such as equations, theorems, accepted values, etc. The humanities and history pages obviously have longer, more elaborate descriptions and seem to be more likely to have mistakes or spam hidden in them. If my students needed to look up basic formulas and constants, I would definitely tell them they could use Wikipedia because that type of information is more likely to always be correct than the details in less "sciencey" articles. I could expand this idea though which would mean that I simply would let my students use it for the basic facts surrounding any topic, but not for more elaborate details that are more likely to have errors on Wikipedia. Kslinker5493 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a good point, there is definitely a difference in the type of information that would be more credible on Wikipedia. I agree that history and humanities pages should be questioned more closely. It's a lot easier to have biased information in theoretical and interpretation-based topics. You're right about information such as equations being more reliable on Wikipedia. There is not much to argue about a specific equation. It's either presented correctly or it's wrong. Information credibility is quite different with humanities because there are often different interpretations of the elements and facts. You made a really good point with this post. --Eems.p (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If You're Going to Use Wikipedia, You Need to Understand What It Is
Wikipedia is now so pervasive and important a resource that I'm close to thinking that every student ought to have some sort of formal orientation to it. I'm not sure what the form would be and how it would be implemented, but I can see a lot of value in something like that across the curriculum. I think students are going to use it regardless of what their professors say. They might not reference it explicitly in their work, but its influence will be there. Maybe it's kind of like teaching your kids about sex. You might not be comfortable doing it, but if you don't, someone else will and you will lose your opportunity to control how it gets handled. The reason for my header above is that I think Wikipedia is very often a great resource, but you have to understand how it is developed if you are going to make the best use of it. You need to understand the open and collaborative process that has been used to produce any article you are reading in order to effectively evaluate its reliability.--Brodmont (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your point about how kids will use Wikipedia as a resource whether the teacher says they can or not. If they are told not to use it and they use it anyways without citing, you are teaching the kids plagiarism. If they can be honest about using it, they will at least cite their source and hopefully it will lead them to more professional sources as well. Kslinker5493 (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about encouraging honesty. All in all, though, I think Wikipedia usually isn't suitable as an actual source to be cited. As pointed out by Prof. McGrady, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Academic work should rely on primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is useful in research, especially for helping you to get an overview of a topic and pointing you to references that might be suitable for academic work.--Brodmont (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think that kids should understand the extent of Wikipedia when it comes to doing research. It should not be cited as a source but rather, it should be used to facilitate further research. They should learn not to rely on just the Wikipedia article itself for writing the research paper, but rather use its references. I think they should also learn to be wary of vandalism on Wikipedia, because while it can remove very obvious vandalism, it is a bit harder to get rid of subtle ones, which could impact a research paper if someone was to use only a Wikipedia article. --MangoDango (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with what everyone has said. My feelings are most in alignment with the idea we talked about the first week of class -- you wouldn't use any encyclopedia as a source in an academic paper (except as a primary source in, say, a dissertation about encyclopedias), but for general reference... it serves its porpoise.Luna002 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting Point, but not as a source
Like I said before, because I myself use Wikipedia as a starting point (or have before in my academic career) for research, I would be a hypocrite not to let my students do the same. However, I would not accept Wikipedia as a listed source. I wouldn't accept it at all. Even if students checked resources on article pages, it would require an additional level of instruction and grading on my part. With what I assume would already be a stretched curriculum, it would be difficult to fit in more instruction based solely on Wikipedia, and also include a lot of additional time on my part to check through each and every article and then go on to check each resource for validity. I feel that including a minor section of instruction on Wikipedia would only confuse the students, considering we would briefly touch on a complicated subject that needs time to sink in and to grasp/explain/explore. All in all, because anyone can edit it, the only way to determine the validity is by going through the references or resources listed, which requires additional instruction on its own. It is much easier to encourage students to use it as a starting point source, continuing on to use peer reviewed or academic sources only.--Tabbboooo (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it could potentially used as a starting point, I didn't even think about that for my post. Getting initial information, then expanding on what you've found en route to finding other sources sounds okay. But like you said, I wouldn't accept it as a listed source either; you just never know who will edit it and students don't need to be misinformed--Jastout (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your wording about how teachers should encourage students to use Wikipedia for initial discovery, almost as a means to let them know exactly what they should look for and expand upon via other sources (e.g., newspapers). If a teacher tells you to write an essay on a U.S. president, for instance, you'll have no idea where to start. Wikipedia gives you ideas from which to pick interesting talking points and then look elsewhere for details. --Information-01152001 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on extent of prior knowledge
Much like other people have stated earlier, Wikipedia is great when serving for a starting point to gain a general idea about a topic. However, unless the user is completely ignorant to the subject, then I don't think it is necessary to make Wikipedia the first destination. Part of Wikipedia's popularity is its ease and immediacy, and it has become common practice for just about anyone to quickly learn facts about something from an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia often gives a brief but broad overview within an article, but often doesn't feature the most extensive or in-depth information about a topic. I think that in a class that often covers a fair amount about the subject matter that would be featured for a topic for a research paper, the general idea of the topic is already known by the student. Thus, it is sort of pointless to go to Wikipedia in search of anything more than a general idea when there is likely a stronger source with more information.--Eng395jy (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Composition
If I were teaching a composition-based English course, I wouldn't allow my students to use Wikipedia as a source. Although much of the information is accurate, I just don't trust it enough. In a class, none of the assignment topics should be unfamiliar. Therefore, there would be no reason to use Wikipedia, even as a starting point. I think Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information, I just don't think that it has a place on a "works cited." Rebaduck (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree if you are learning the information in class then you should not really need a starting place like a encyclopedia. I also think you can't really ever cite Wikipedia since it is always changing. How would you ever be able to cite something that never has a permanent form or edition. If you cite a print encyclopedia or article those things will never change and they will have the same information as the day you cited them. If you cite Wikipedia the information you cited could be removed or moved the next day turning it into a completely new source. Its just not a good source to cite because of the constant changes occurring in it. --Youngpenn (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No.
If we are talking about a college class, then all that hard work people put into writing their Wikipedia article should be the minimum of the work a college student should put into writing about a topic. Of course, as other people have said here, and we have often said in class, it is a good starting point to see what sources could be helpful, but personally I don't even do that because you should be able to find all that information on your own. It seems to be that nobody remembers what a library is really for anymore, since when I go there it's loud and people are playing video games (what is the deal with that??). You don't even have to go to the library when all the journals are listed online. Using Wikipedia is a lazy way to do a college-level assignment, and it shows in your work.Tinaface86 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also say no because if I was to teach a class it would be some sort of writing class. I would not teach a class about creative writing but maybe one on style and rhetoric. The majority of information on these subjects comes from universities and anything published about them online could be misconstrued. Everything reliable on Wikipedia has to be cited from another website and unless somebody is trained in rhetoric and style and making corrections the information would not be reliable. I think this would be the case with most classes at a university. I am the paranoid kind of person who doubts everything until I am certain it is true. Since the credentials of a person writing on Wikipedia cannot be known for sure, it is unknown whether their information is legitimate or cleverly worded crap. As a source for general information Wikipedia is the first place I turn to because I feel it is good enough to fulfill my interests on matters that are not as important. If I was teaching a class that required research I would think it too important to take the risk of a student using information that may be false. --SJRick (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually would teach a class on creative writing, and I might tell my students to use Wikipedia for some sort of prompt exercise (e.g. click the random article link three times, then make a story around those three topics). But for researching for a story, like so many others have already said, Wikipedia's really just a great starting point. Using Wikipedia as the primary research for a short story, in my experience, yields really weak and shallow results. --Katerwaul (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Computer Science
I am a computer science major, so I am going to assume that I would/would not be recommending the use of Wikipedia in a computer science related class. I am actually currently taking a class called file organization and processing where we are studying the efficiency of algorithms and my professor tells us to go to Wikipedia to look at them. For algorithms Wikipedia provides great information, including pseudocode and an animated gif that shows you how the algorithms work. I think that being able to visually see how a sorting algorithm is suppose to work is great. The algorithm pages also include run time efficiencies right at the very top, this is very convenient to not have to search around for it. I think what makes Wikipedia really useful is that it would be used as supplementary material, not foundational material. Everything that the student would need to learn we would cover in class and Wikipedia could be used to supplement that to help reinforce the material. This would also be useful in the case where Wikipedia had false information, if we already covered the correct information in class then they should (hopefully) know that the information in Wikipedia was wrong. In this kind of setting I don't see anything wrong with promoting the use of Wikipedia. --MartellRedViper (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Use it as a resource, not an actual source
I’ve never seen Wikipedia as a true source. It’s more of an organizational tool than one of evidence provision. I would tell my students to use Wikipedia as a re source but not as an actual source If the primary source is available, use it. Just like you wouldn’t link to a forum page, I treat Wikipedia in the same way. The Wiki page can change or disappear by the time a professor receives the student’s ‘works cited.’ There’s no need to risk that when the primary source certainly won’t disappear. This also falls under my ethical values, too. I always try my best to link to reporters who actually break the news instead of the hundreds of other people (still reliable in their own right) who reword the same thing. It’s my way of giving credit where credit it due. --Information-01152001 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I believe Wikipedia should be used as a resource and the primary source is the one that should be cited. There is definitely no need to risk using information from Wikipedia that can be found elsewhere in a primary source. I can also agree that the person who originally posts the information should be credited by using it as the source.--Ryenocerous (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would actually like to agree in what you are saying. Wikipedia is a very popular and a useful website host but it shouldn't be relied as solely as a primary source. Wikipedia is a web host with exchanged information about ideas and knowledge. However it's messages is communicated by different varieties of host and creators. A 13 year old child could be someone you exchange ideas from or a 95 year old widower from Texas. The point is, when you use Wikipedia, you are drawing many people's perspective and ideas into a single source, which knowledge base either above your standards or even below your standards or desired class grade and you might be misguided. However, Wikipedia is adhering to growing technology, technology that can filter false information, spam and even verification of validity. Their speedy ad deletion page makes it harder for someone actually trying to produce a page to do so but also at the same time, easier to filter and delete for false or unsupported information --Isaiahgee (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC). Eventually, once Wikipedia adhere to all growing technology of validity, it soon will be a reliable source for ALL information.

Initial Source
I would allow students to use Wikipedia as an initial source for obtaining information. Personally, I have found Wikipedia to be accurate, however, I always view multiple sources to make sure that information is consistent. If there are discrepancies amongst sources, it is usually not worth including that information. Therefore, I would allow students to use Wikipedia to get a general basis of information but would stipulate that if they want to use this information they must find the same information on a different site and use that as the source. Thus, the purpose of Wikipedia in this class would solely be to get initial information but not to be cited as a source. --Ryenocerous (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If they were pulling their information from Wikipedia would it not be okay to use it as a source? If they were getting their information from there, and citing another source, wouldn't that be inaccurate citations? --MartellRedViper (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point he's making is that it is the same information but from another source, so it doesn't actually come from Wikipedia. The source to be cited is only the one that the information immediately comes from. You could go to the Wikipedia page and just scroll right down to the references, never having even read the page. --Tinaface86 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the student
Honestly it shows in the student's work what they put into it. If they should desire to seek out Wikipedia as a starting off point, it is up to them to branch out and find other sources. I understand every student's mind works differently, and wouldn't force them down a narrow path in their learning. However, they must understand their own weaknesses, and Wikipedia will either mean the first step on a slippery slope in a lazily crafted assignment, or a quick general overview of a particular topic before finding more information elsewhere or through Wikipedia's listed sources. Regardless, I don't see harm in a student looking at Wikipedia, but they shouldn't base everything they work directly off one source from anywhere anyway. --Seannator (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no inherent harm in looking at Wikipedia pages. Sometimes it is prudent to get a general idea of the subject being covered before delving into, say, a 15-page paper where you don't really know the subject matter very well. The specific student does need to know themselves and their writing/researching strengths. --Tinaface86 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably Not
Thanks to my previous teachers/instructors/professors I still have a hard time even considering being "okay" with the idea of potentially letting someone use Wikipedia as source. The only way, as of right now, that I would deem it "acceptable" would be for a middle school or lower education project. Since 99.9 percent of college professors would laugh if a student asked to use Wikipedia as a source, teaching that it accepted in high school would bad idea. But, if I was the professor of a class, I probably wouldn't accept Wikipedia as a source. The longer I'm in this course the more I'm starting to lean towards "Wikipedia is acceptable" but at the moment it sill feels wrong. I'm a traditionalist, so waning from credentialed writing just doesn't seem acceptable.--Jastout (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an interesting test to have one group of students write all their papers using Wikipedia. Then have another group of students write their papers not using Wikipedia. I bet the results would be pretty similar as far as the accuracy of the information they provided. If a test like this would to prove that using Wikipedia doesn't decrease the quality of your paper, would you then find it acceptable to use?--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)