After reading Andrea’s earlier post on Literacy & Video Games, I began pondering on what other things in my life I do that I don’t really associate with learning and becoming more literate. One tool that has recently become of age is the use of some amateur online websites and databases, more specifically “Wikipedia”. Even though Wikipedia is an open forum that allows anyone to edit posts and make new pages, it is still very helpful in discovering and learning leads on new information. I even sometimes find myself wandering through pages and reading about topics that have interested me throughout the day or week. Ultimately, I feel I’ve learned a decent amount, some background information, some vocabulary, and other facts I didn’t know before. I’ve even wondered if I’m the only person who does this, specifically with Wikipedia. With that said, has anybody else ever wandered onto the same trend?
Furthermore, I do not feel that it is harmful to read information off of Wikipedia. Even though it’s not an academic article, it isn’t much different than a biased news article written by a journalist. Although, I do feel that, as the reader, you have to be aware of what you’re reading. Given the fact that anyone can adjust information, it is vital to check citations, if available, or often follow up on the information you’ve read.
With kids and teenagers having the internet at their disposal at such young ages, do you feel that databases like Wikipedia will have a positive or negative bearing on growing literacy and/or academic research?
6 comments:
Wikipedia is usually my first search engine when researching a topic. It is hard to trust the facts posted on the website since they're done by regular citizens, but when I add the website to my work cited page of my essay, it's like I'm saying "if my facts are wrong, blame the author of this page." But I guess searching Wikipedia would fall along the same lines as doing a Google search. Some more reliable sources would appear but most of them are blogs with a relateable topic. It's not really of who is right with their facts on a certain subjects but really more as whose facts we trust more. When all else fails, there's always the encyclopedia or a book.
Wikipedia is what I like to think of as a quick reference or a backup source. If I'm reading a book with a lot of unfamiliar people/terms/places, I'll usually have my web browser open and when one of these terms comes up, I simply Google search it to learn more. Probably 9 times out of 10 the first link I click on is Wikipedia, because it is usually the first link listed. In this way I feel that Wikipedia is definitely supplemental to my reading, and my understanding of the material.
I can also say that you are not alone Justin in your random weekly searches. I also think that Wikipedia is a useful tool for information, in the way that I mentioned above and for the purposes you are citing. But would I use Wikipedia in a paper or a report for school? Definitely not, mostly because I was prohibited from doing so and because of the reputation Wikipedia has that is similar to blogs: anyone can post anything they want or change what was written to suit their opinions.
Here's an example of how it can get totally out of control: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519283,00.html
To answer your question though, the future of Wikipedia (and largely blogs as I would also group them in this category) and their relation to students' academic research depends largely on the future of the writers themselves. If the academic community can eventually hold Wikipedia authors and bloggers to the same standard they hold authors of books, journals, and newspaper articles, then I would say they could have a substantially positive effect on the future of academia and how we process and interpret knowledge.
I think Wikipedia is a great resource, but I can't say that I've ever used it as a source for a research paper, because the validity of the content is so disputed. It's worth noting though that we should accept no research as completely correct or unbiased– I think one of the things that is stressed most in academics these days is that almost nothing is free of an agenda.
Nevertheless, I do think that Wikipedia is a great tool for gaining non-professional or non-scholarly knowledge. For instance, I was recently reading about the differences between tigons and ligers on wikipedia. Useless? Most likely. Interesting? No doubt. The sheer amount of information available on Wikipedia, as well as the accessibility of the system makes Wikipedia a great tool for fostering a love of learning. Maybe I want to learn about James Joyce, or maybe I want to learn about Shamanistic cultures... it's all there.
For reading for the fun of it, and possibly for learning some periphery content, Wikipedia is a great tool. I'd just caution anyone who uses it as a source for an academic paper: though the content you pull from wikipedia might be completely correct, most professors are hell-bent on discrediting wikipedia and will attack it regardless of the validity of your research. Maybe someday that will change...
Sorry to stray from the "wiki" topic but Eddie brings up an interesting point: "one of the things that is stressed most in academics these days is that almost nothing is free of an agenda." Although I strongly agree that invisible agendas are everywhere, I had never heard anything about this in my pre-college years. Most of the time, high school (and some college) assignments were straight forward, with little to no emphasis put on the true meaning or agenda behind them. I had never wondered about literacy tests, reasons for freshman English classes, or the purposes of standardized testing before this class. Literacy testing at voting booths may seem reasonable, but when we learn that these tests were specifically given to black citizens to deter them from voting (even though it was their new found right) the underlying agenda begins to show. I try to take everything I hear and see with a grain of salt for just such a reason.
Unlike most of the people who have commented on this post, I've never used Wikipedia to search a topic. When I was in high school my teachers always stressed to never use it when we were writing a paper. I think this is the reason I've shied away from it and don't see it as a respectable source. However, from what I've read in these comment, I think that it would be a good starting point for research, especially since the pages include sources at the bottom. After reading the initial posts and the comments, I did go to the site and browse through a couple pages, and I find it pretty interesting and useful. While I still think that Wikipedia is not academic enough to use as a source itself, I do think it would be useful as a starting point for students. So I thank all of you for showing me the Wikipedia light!
I can't believe you've never used Wikipedia Jessica! I, as seems the popular opinion, would never use the website as a source for an actual paper, but I do use it frequently as an easy go-to quick reference, as Justin initially stated. The internet is a fabulous tool but with SO much information available it can be quite intimidating and frustrating. One can easily feel lost and by going to a website like Wikipedia information is immediately condensed and I always feel a weight lifted off my shoulders. Usually from here I am able to narrow my search, include possibly an additional author or contributor to a theory that will help direct my search.
As for realizing the lack of credibility associated with such sites I feel, as Jessica stated, that most students today are aware that the information is not definite and to search with caution. All in all though I think that Wikipedia helps more than it hurts, acting as a life saver when searching the very intimidating web.
Post a Comment