- This topic has 5 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
There is a really good article in the 4th QTR edition of the Journal of Military History about Wikipedia and it's place in modern scholarship. The author of the article is one of the editors of the War of 1812 article on Wikipedia and it is essentially an account of how the article was written and its history as well as an assessment of it's level of scholarship. He basically says that although Wikipedia is not perfect it is in general very good with the caveat that certain categories of article are much more liable to bias than others on the site. While I have not changed my opinion of using/citing Wikipedia I have to agree with the article that Wikipedia is one of the best places to start online research into just about any topic. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt but it is a readily available, generally accurate resource.If I were a prof. I would still fail a student that cited it though. The article itself is worth reading.The cite is: Richard Jensen, “Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812,” The Journal of Military History 76 #4 (October 2012): 1165-82.
My opinion has been the same for several years that certain types of Wikipedia articles are more reliable than others. I think it's rare that someone would maliciously edit an entry for a technical term, but entries of political figures or even important historical figures are more liable to abuse. The problem that all Wikipedia entries potentially face, however, is that they are all limited by the academic knowledge of the person inputting or working on the entry. A recent college graduate may know a thing or two about an obscure historical figure and start an entry on him; however, the graduate may not know how to assess a person within a larger historical framework and may have relied on outdated sources in what he writes.In the end, if we can't really trust the knowledge of the person writing an entry, we can't really trust the end result. Wikipedia is often times a great first step in the process of learning, but it needs to go through filters. Students should never cite Wikipedia in academic papers, but I have no problem if they go to it to get a preliminary sketch of a topic unfamiliar to them.
I'm fine with going to Wikipedia to get a “Cliff's Notes” start on a subject in order to be pointed in the right direction. But that's it.
Agree with all. I use Wikipedia as an intro only. It does seem certain entries have better citations, ancient history being one of them. Found many a primary source using wikipedia.
Agree with all as well. I tell my students that Wikipedia can be a good starting point especially when looking at the references but they must look further.
I did not know you were a teacher.In the past, I have thought of teaching a "Wikilesson" to my students by inserting some erroneous fact into an entry which students may want to look at before an exam. I would be able to determine who took the bait by looking a their exams after they turn them in.
One of the suggestions in the article to make Wikipedia better is to incorporate it into college classes by assigning students to edit Wikipedia articles. I actually think that is a pretty good idea.Another point made by the author is that the history articles on Wikipedia tend to be the best and leas biased articles although he does complain that they don't hew as well to the post-modern tilt as academic articles. His complaint, if you can call it that, is that the history articles tend to present history as it was classically written until the last 30 years or so. I agree with him and think that is a good thing. I especially like the Wikipedia insistence on a neutral point of view.
Nobody is perfect 8)
Tell me about it!
One of the suggestions in the article to make Wikipedia better is to incorporate it into college classes by assigning students to edit Wikipedia articles. I actually think that is a pretty good idea.Another point made by the author is that the history articles on Wikipedia tend to be the best and leas biased articles although he does complain that they don't hew as well to the post-modern tilt as academic articles. His complaint, if you can call it that, is that the history articles tend to present history as it was classically written until the last 30 years or so. I agree with him and think that is a good thing. I especially like the Wikipedia insistence on a neutral point of view.
I recall a few years ago that a class project at some school was to create/re-edit a Wikipedia entry. I do think that is a good project, as it forces students to find comprehensive sources on a subject matter and consider it from different angles.I wonder how the author judges the bias of history articles compared to the bias, in, say engineering articles. I would think that there would be less bias in entries on technical things than even on historical figures who play into the modern political discourse.
