Wikipedia is not the Devil

“Don’t use Wikipedia!” my teachers said, “You don’t know who wrote it, they could be giving you incorrect information.” Still, it remains a very useful and often used resource. It’s more convenient than a print encyclopedia and is kept much more current. So what’s so terrible about it? Teachers point to the fact that it is crowd-sourced. This means that anyone, from an expert in the field to some bored internet wanderer, can create, write and edit articles. This means that the article about astrophysics could be written by an astrophysicist from MIT or some dude who really likes UFOs. This is the feature that many teachers point to as wikipedia’s downfall, but they seem to forget that anyone could include their students. Including students as authors on wikipedia turns the whole thing on its head.

Instead of passively using Wikipedia to easily gain information, they are producing information. This process can help them understand exactly why information found on wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. An article taken on as a class project allows opportunities for students to share information with a wide real-world audience, edit and critique each others work, understand the importance of citations, and take on responsibility for providing accurate information. This could work well in a variety of subjects since Wikipedia is not limited to a particular field. However, I think it is particularly useful in a world language or ESL class.

It can often be difficult to provide students in language classes real-world opportunities to use their new language skills. Wikipedia provides an easily accessible platform for students to interact both with the language and with speakers of that language. There are 280 different languages that have active Wikipedias. Many articles that appear in English don’t have counterparts in other languages. This provides and opportunity for students to share something new with that language community. Students can write about something from their own culture, their town, or something the class is interested in.

I had one of my classes in Japan write a Wikipedia article about their town as their last junior high English project. The whole project took four classes spread out over two months. In the first two classes the students explored the English version of Wikipedia and looked at the sections that were included in other articles. They decided which sections they wanted to include and assigned sections to students. The students wrote their sections as homework. The last two classes were devoted to editing and getting their work online. The class really enjoyed getting to see their final work in English online. When we started, an English Wikipedia search for “Irahara” brought up nothing and at the end they could pull up their article. For students who don’t have a lot of contact with the target language outside of the classroom, this can be a very powerful and motivating experience.

If we remember to take advantage of all of the features that different media offer, we can find a variety of ways to involve, motivate, and empower students.

3 thoughts on “Wikipedia is not the Devil

  1. Wow, Sarah, this is an incredibly unique and intriguing idea! I had a linguistics professor who mocked other professors for being so “down” on Wikipedia. It does have incredible value when used correctly, and the idea of students writing for Wikipedia is ingenious. They would really have to tap into their “formal, academic, objective” voices to accomplish the task, and that’s something that students constantly need practice in. They would also be held to a high standard to give accurate information. Plus, authentic activities trump random essays any day. I would love to have witnessed that project in Japan!

  2. Hi Sarah,
    I have the same experience when professors strongly oppose the use of Wikipedia, and require students to dig-in professional scholarly research papers and come up with their own summary of certain technical terms. Even though I completely understand the motive behind professors’ requirement, it’s really too difficult and time-consuming for students. Comparing to that, Wikipedia is of great help to summarize information for us. It’s true that crowdsourcing is partly responsible for biased and inaccurate opinions, but the benefits brought by it could be very helpful for language learners. I really agree with your opinions about using Wikipedia as a portal for language learners to interact with speakers of target language. It could greatly bring up their interest in study.

  3. Hi Sarah,

    You title pulls me in and your words even amazes me. I have heard that for hundred times from the research teacher saying the incredibility of Wikipedia. I admit that for a research paper, Wikipedia is not an appropriate and reliable resource. However, no one can deny that we learn a lot from it! It has everything you want to know, with so many details and examples. Except for its informative usage, Wikipedia could be used as a language learning material. All the information has different language version, using it as a good reading material gives students an incredible benefit since they are reading while learning something as well. When they get to something hard to comprehend, they can go back to their native language version and acquire a better understanding. So it maybe reasonable to reject Wikipedia when doing research, but never say no when you are learning language!

    Cindy

Comments are closed.