Wiki Reality

The debate over the reliability and efficacy of Wikipedia as a valid source of information rages on. I recently found out through my ENGL 518 Technology course that the word wiki-wiki means fast in Hawaiian. The first creator of a Wiki is Ward Cunningham. He apparently learned the word wiki-wiki on a trip to Hawaii when he was instructed to take the wiki-wiki bus - the very fast bus. Since the introduction of Wikipedia to the technological world, the standard paper encyclopedia has seen its hard copy demise. There are those who lament this demise and those who applaud the currency of the online format. The fact that there is even a debate about using encyclopedias as a source of information -- as a citation on a paper -- is clearly ridiculous.

Why? Because anyone who has taught writing at any level beyond middle school knows full well that encyclopedias are not academic sources for research. At the elementary and middle school level, when students are learning the basic concepts of research and fact finding, they are introduced to the encyclopedia as a credible source of accurate information. The information contained therein is meant to be factual and unbiased. Of course we know that there is really no such thing, but we allow younger students to experiment with using sources beginning with the encyclopedia.

Moving beyond that basic introduction to finding sources to support their ideas, students beginning as early as middle school and certainly no later than high school are taught more advanced methods of research. It is specifically stated at this level that encyclopedias are no longer valid sources for citation in academic papers. This is because encyclopedias represent what is considered to be general knowledge. Academic papers are meant to go beyond general knowledge into deeper analysis, including synthesis and evaluation. So, while students may use encyclopedias to gather some basic information in the beginning stages of research, it is expected that they will only use that information to advance their thesis, not as direct support for any thesis.

Maybe in all the confusion of this debate, that fact has become lost. I certainly consider Wikipedia a fairly reliable source for basic information, and I have used it on countless occasions. I appreciate that it is continually updated, and I value the idea of crowd-sourcing. Are there only certain experts who hold this knowledge? Absolutely not. And aren't we teaching our students to be active learners anyway? Wikipedia recognizes that there are many who can contribute to the body of general knowledge that is found in encyclopedias. In a well-written and insightful article on this topic by Maria Bustillos, the author relates the extensive process that Wikipedia uses to monitor and edit the articles it contains. She ends her own article by discussing the impact that the written word had on the oral word, which had previously been the guiding force of "general knowledge."  She states that this change resulted in a culture of individual ownership of ideas. This newest evolution focuses far more heavily on shared or collaborative efforts toward defining general knowledge. I, for one, believe that this progress will not only benefit the sphere of knowledge, but that it is probably the best chance for solving most of the modern day problems this world faces.