Developing a Wikipedia Research Policy
Alan Liu posted the following on Humanist. I asked his permission to repost it here, and he consented. I'll post some thoughts of my own as a response to this post. For now, I'd offer that Dr. Liu's post seems to strike a good balance; I wonder how students would react to this statement.
Subject: Request for Comment: draft policy statement on student use of Wikipedia
This message is a request for comment (the humanities version of a RFC). 2006 appears to be the year that undergraduate students discovered Wikipedia in a big way. My colleagues and I have been seeing an increasing number of papers that use Wikipedia inappropriately as the sole or primary reference. For example, I just read a paper about the relation between Structuralism, Deconstruction, and Postmodernism in which every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any need to read a primary work or even a critical work. After writing comments to a number of students on this topic, I set to work on a general policy statement addressed to the student that might be shared among my local community of scholars (see draft below). I thought such a statement might be of general use. I welcome any suggestions from, or discussion by, the Humanist community as well as pointers to any similar statements that
may exist. (Still to do is a one-paragraph version of such a statement suitable for inclusion in a course syllabus.)
--Alan Liu, UC Santa Barbara
TO THE STUDENT: APPROPRIATE USE OF WIKIPEDIA
In recent years, Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) has become one of the most important and useful resources on the Internet. Created by an open community of authors (anyone can contribute, edit, or correct articles), it has become a powerful resource for researchers to consult alongside other
established library and online resources. As in the case of all tools, however, its value is a function of appropriateness. In the case of college-level essays or research papers, students should keep in mind the following two limitations, one applying to all encyclopedias, and the other specifically to Wikipedia:
(1) As in the case of any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not appropriate as the primary or sole reference for anything that is central to an argument, complex, or controversial. "Central to an argument" means that the topic in question is crucial for the paper. (For example, a paper
_about_ Shakespeare or postmodernism cannot rely on an encyclopedia article on those topics.) "Complex" means anything requiring analysis, critical thought, or evaluation. (For example, it is not persuasive to cite an encyclopedia on "spirituality.") "Controversial" means anything that
requires listening to the original voices in a debate because no consensus or conventional view has yet emerged. (For example, cite an encyclopedia on the historical facts underlying a recent political election, but not on themeaning or trends indicated by that election.) These limitations are due to the fact that encyclopedia articles are second- or third-hand summaries. They are excellent starting points for learning about something. But a college-level research paper or critical essay needs to consult directly the articles, books, or other sources mentioned by an encyclopedia article and use those as the reference. The best such sources are those that have been refereed ("peer-reviewed" by other scholars before acceptance for publication, which is the case for most scholarly journals and books) or, in the case of current events, journalistic or other resources that are relatively authoritative in their field.
However, a Wikipedia citation can be an appropriate convenience when the point being supported is minor, non-controversial, or also supported by other evidence. In addition, Wikipedia is an appropriate source for some extremely recent topics (especially in popular culture or technology) for which it provides the sole or best available synthetic, analytical, or historical discussion.
(2) Wikipedia has special limitations because it is an online encyclopedia written by a largely unregulated, worldwide, and often anonymous community of contributors. The principle of "many-eyes" policing upon which Wikipedia depends for quality-control (that is, many people
looking at and correcting articles) works impressively well in many cases. However:
(a) Wikipedia is currently an uneven resource. For example, articles on technological or popular culture topics can sometimes be more reliable, vetted (corrected by a community experts), or current than articles on humanistic issues of the sort that students in literature, history, and other humanities majors often need to research.
(b) Some articles in Wikipedia are unreliable because they are the contested terrain of "edit wars," political protest, or vandalism. Such articles include both those on obviously controversial topics and on unexpected topics. For a sobering sense of the limitations of Wikipedia, consult the long list of "protected" Wikipedia articles (articles that Wikipedia no longer, or at least not for now, allows users to edit in the normal way in order to protect them from edit wars or other mischief):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page>. (See also the bibliography appended below on recent controversies about the reliability of Wikipedia.) Students should also keep in mind that Wikipedia--like the Internet as a whole--is edited globally. This means that topics related to
"United States," "China," "Tony Blair," or "World Cup soccer," for example (and many others), are contested terrain.
(c) Students should be aware that Wikipedia is a dynamic, constantly mutating resource. Even if it is appropriate to cite it as a reference, the citation is meaningless unless it includes the date on which the page was accessed (which would allow a reader to use the Wikipedia "history" feature to look up the specific version of the article being referenced). Indeed, Wikipedia articles on some topics change so frequently (even to the extent of vandals "reverting" to earlier scandalous misinformation) that a citation should include the exact hour of access.
Students should feel free to consult Wikipedia as one of the most powerful instruments for opening knowledge that the Internet has yet produced. But it is not a one-stop-shop for reliable knowledge. Indeed, the term "encyclopedia" is somewhat to blame. Because it is communal, dynamic, and unrefereed, Wikipedia is not really (or not just) an encyclopedia of knowledge. It is better thought of as a combination of encyclopedia and "blog." It is the world's blog.
Bibliography of Articles on the Controversy Regarding Wikipedia's
* Steven Musil, "Wikipedia's Woes," C/NET News.com, 9 December 2005
* John Seigenthaler, "A False Wikipedia 'Biography'," USA Today.com, 29
* Daniel Terdiman, "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica," C/Net
News.com, 15 December 2005 < http://news.com.com/2102-1038_3-5997332.html>
* Ray Cha, "Another Round: Britannica versus Wikipedia," if:book, 31
* Lisa Vaas, "Wikipedia Erects Accuracy Firewall," 19 December 2005
* Katie Hafner, "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit'
Policy," New York Times, 17 June 2006
=slogin&adxnnlx=1150630485-m7D+jesnoKz+kAAD8almhw> (alternative site: