Schools Move To Ban Wikipedia As Unverified Reference
11/28/2007, 9 months ago
If you?ve been following developments inside the Pennsylvania state legislature in the past, say, 5 years or so, you?ll know that quite a few lawmakers tend to go against the grain of conventional wisdom.
If you recall the absurdity that resulted in the Intelligent Design debacle, in which some in the state seriously contemplated a shift in elementary school curriculum to allow for some measure of non-scientific ?study? in science classes, you?ll know that at least a few higher-ups in the Quaker State?s governmental structure are guaranteed to exercise illogical jurisprudence. In other words, they?re off their rockers.
Well, add another oddity to Pennsylvania?s list of the bizarre. According to a story by Ars Technica?s Nate Anderson published late yesterday evening (or early this morning, depending on your place of residence), some in the state?s educational hierarchy have taken it upon themselves to ban Wikipedia, labeling it an invalid source of information not to be allowed as reference by students for schoolwork.
Mind you, anti-Wikipedia sentiment doesn?t brew only among the topmost echelons of the town, county, or state boards. The regional Express-Times newspaper found that a librarian at the Great Meadows Middle School (which, strangely enough, is located in the state of New Jersey) took it upon herself to post signs labeled ?Just Say No To Wikipedia? in the school?s computer lab.
But, as is sadly to be expected, whole systems of modern society can err the wrong way, too. The Warren Hills Regional School District is an example in the open-source respect. It proceeded to block Wikipedia access from all school computers.
Their reasoning is that ?Wikipedia?s unverified accuracy and easy of use are making it too tempting for students to use as a primary source. So, naturally, (warning: sarcasm ahead) shunning the open source reference entirely is indeed a necessary course of action. Can?t trust democratic inventions too much now, can we? Of course not. How silly it would be to think otherwise.
Surely we all know what?s to come of this development: an influx in the use of Wikipedia. If students are told not to do something they, as intelligent beings, know to be acceptable, they will most likely do it with deliberately increased fervency.
What do you make of this news? Confounded? Mystified? Perhaps you fall in line with cautioning against use of Wikipedia in schools? Post your opinions in the comments below.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
It’s funny that none of the articles noting Wikipedia is/will/should be banned from schools mention the various illustrations of sex positions or images of various body parts. Wanna see what an anus looks like? How about a clitoris? Penis is well illustrated, of course with no less than six images - in case you missed the point the first time. That’s not to mention, of course, the well illustrated adult-oriented articles cover subjects such as BDSM and related variations. Yes. Just the sort of thing for school libraries to share with our children.
Jack,
That’s information for ya. Stuff you don’t mind, and stuff you do mind, all in one boat.
The problem is not the existence of those references, or terms, or images pertaining to various articles. The problem is the unease in the minds of some people. Rather than say, “yes, those items are part of our world, part of life”, and say no to ignorance, people instead display embarrassment and disgust and revulsion to things.
Yet, I ask this: Who is to say your feelings, or those of others, warrant censorship and selective, restrictive learning? Wikipedia is, on the whole, a thoroughly wonderful invention. Isn’t it right (and our duty), for the maturation and progression of humanity, to expand our knowledge?
I work for a publishing company that produces dozens of magazines. For the most part, their research teams have “banned” (or at least frown upon) the us of Wikipedia as a source. I’ve seen first hand how many errors have to get pulled out of articles that are sourced from the site. I think most publications that tout journalistic accuracy do the same.
In my reporting, Wikipedia can be the first stop for info that is verified elsewhere (usually from a primary source). I find info on Wikipedia is acceptably accurate about 70% of the time. It often gets little details wrong (which are usually quite important to my stories) or publishes data that’s out-of-date.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make students go directly to primary sources to get info. Some students are lazy (I sure was), others are overworked. It just creates bad habits if they consider Wiki-accuracy just good enough to get by.
That said, the whole rejection of the Open Source movement and the above-noted “questionable content” is another issue entirely.
As long as Wikipedia remains an open source of information editable by anyone there is no way it can ever be considered a credible source. I do work for 3 different singers and their Wiki pages are constantly being updated with incorrect or false information. In my opinion, it’s a smart move by school systems.
Recently one my friends, a PHD from Standford, got flamed off of Wikipedia. He is an expert in his area of expertise and owns the domain name for it. Now if they had a verification process or system so little kids can’t flame off PHDs on Wikipedia that would improve it vastly.
James,
There has been false information published in stories in, say, The New York Times. Should individuals not consult the publication then for research purposes?
The OED was constructed in a similar way to Wikipedia. It spent a great many years in rough stages before it arrived at the point of almost thorough validity. Does that mean it’s accuracy is compromised?
Also, you pinpoint those singers pages as being consistently edited with false information. They are 3 singers, sir. Such problems to do with the addition of falsities are few and far between (considering the entire breadth of Wikipedia). furthermore, unless those singers are very noteworthy, they would not have encyclopedic entries to speak of whatsoever. There’s certainly something to be said for that fact.
The Dude Dean,
What was the nature of the “flame-job”? Posting profanities? Untrue additions to his resume?
The fact that your friend earned himself a Ph.D means little. There are individuals who have not achieved such academic heights that have been “slandered” on Wikipedia. I’m assume much more famous and more frequently searched out than he, too.
Again, as far as the defense of Wikipedia goes, articles and entries are open to edits. So if one sees inaccuracies, they may make changes as necessary, which are then posted to board monitored by an editorial collective which works to put a stop to abuse.
If an inaccuracy shows up in a hardbound edition of an encyclopedia, such changes are not so easily altered.
The ifs, ands, and buts are on both sides of the divide, no?
The whole sorted affair was deleted, but it was funny that such trolling took place there.
Paul, you keep saying how bad information will eventually be replaced by good. It is just as easy to say that good information with be replaced by bad. In fact, a recent University of Minnesota study shows that the number of page views that are “damaged” is proportionally INCREASING, not decreasing, over time.
Here’s another reason schools should shut off Wikipedia and leave it for the children’s parents’ home computers to decide. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit company, Wikia Inc., is hosting private/secret mailing lists of key Wikipedia administrators and Foundation-level employees, for the sole purpose of spying on and identifying editors who are considered by this clan as “suspicious”. All the facts are at these two links:
http://tinyurl.com/26br4j
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071127/time-to-change-public-opinion-of-wikipedia/
I think most readers will be shocked to learn that Wikipedia’s top leaders are literally on surveillance watch if your editing is considered the least bit in conflict with their point of view. I emphatically believe that children should not be spied on. It is amazing that people actually donate money to this corrupt organization. Wikipedia — a neat concept, executed by devious individuals, making it “the world’s most irresponsible encyclopedia”.
Paul, tell us all how SPYING ON EDITORS, and in the case mentioned above — even blocking reputable editors on false charges — is okay in your mind. And you want kids working under that umbrella?
I take the attitude with my students that no, it is not a legitimate source to site. But I know they’re going to use it, so I teach them how. For instance, it’s not a bad place to first orient yourself. But it can never be considered a final destination. Next semester I’m going to have students write Wikipedia entries too. All of this follows along philosophical lines comparible to Mills Kelly at Edwired.