Using Wikipedia in the classroom

[Unregistered]

Hello,

I am a student teacher carrying out a small research project on the use of Wikipedia and classroom learning. Essentially I get the pupils to explain topics from their Graphic Communication course with their information being uploaded to the Wikipedia website. I was looking for any information to the following questions. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

In which type of class was Wikipedia used (i.e. English, maths etc)?

In what way were the pupils using the web site? (For example were they carrying out classroom research, editing information or adding information to Wikipedia?)

How accurate / useful did the pupils find the information?

Did the use of Wikipedia provide a positive outcome to the lesson or series of lessons? (Were the pupils well motivated? Did they feel a sense of pride that their information was online for all to see?)

[KatieBee]

Using interactive media with user generated content can be a great experiement, I would just caution you that b/c anyone can update Wikipedia it might not always pull up the most reliable or balanced information. There have been some public battles over companies and political campaigns messing with defintiions for others on Wikipedia. Good luck, it sounds like a GREAT project though!

[Unregistered]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody may post anything. My school does not allow it as a citation resource.

[KatieBee]

I agree as I said earlier, though it might be an intersting lesson in not believing everything you read on the internet!

[Unregistered]

Wikipedia has been banned from my class because of some of the incredibly inaccurate information found there. At first I thought it would be a great resource, but when a French student asked me about the info on Napoleon that he'd gotten from Wikipedia- Mon dieu! C'est terrible! Consquently, I have not allowed my students to use it as a source. It is too bad that people have made what could have been a wonderful resource into a garbage pit!

[Unregistered]

Banned from schools???? More proof schools are becoming outdated. They just don't get it...

[Unregistered]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody may post anything. My school does not allow it as a citation resource.

Uh, FYI, everybody can make a website if they want to. And you allow those?

[Unregistered]

The Scientist, Feb 2006 v20 i2 p18(2)

Nature has Wikipedia in its cites. Stuart Blackman.

"Nature has long been linking to Wikipedia--"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--from its online news stories. On Aug. 25, 2005, Nature cited the Web site in a print editorial. So there was perhaps a collective sigh of relief in the journal's offices when an in-house investigation, published on December 15, found that the site's scientific content is not much less trustworthy than that found in tried-and-tested print encyclopedias. "

Saying that wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it is just plain wrong. I would suggest please doing your research first before contributing with something that is mere opinion. I believe wikipedia to be a perfectly good source, although it helps to teach the students to recognize fraudulent information and to do cross referencing no matter what sources they use.

[Unregistered]

I simply couldn't let this go without a comment. I teach 9th grade science and while I've instructed my students on how to cross-reference and check reliability, I find it disheartening when the student actually cites his source and then tells me something as ludicrous as "Sodium is a Noble Gas."

I have simply instructed my students that wikipedia, while fine for gathering basic information can NOT be used as your cited source for information. I know they try to go over what people have written, but the technical stuff I just can't trust them to be accurate.

To be fair, my students also have to use educational and governmental sites rather than some kid's term paper from 8th grade English in Hoola Hoola, Pennsyltucky.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

The Scientist, Feb 2006 v20 i2 p18(2)

Nature has Wikipedia in its cites. Stuart Blackman.

"Nature has long been linking to Wikipedia--"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--from its online news stories. On Aug. 25, 2005, Nature cited the Web site in a print editorial. So there was perhaps a collective sigh of relief in the journal's offices when an in-house investigation, published on December 15, found that the site's scientific content is not much less trustworthy than that found in tried-and-tested print encyclopedias. "

Saying that wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it is just plain wrong. I would suggest please doing your research first before contributing with something that is mere opinion. I believe wikipedia to be a perfectly good source, although it helps to teach the students to recognize fraudulent information and to do cross referencing no matter what sources they use.


just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it reliable. You can put political spins on wikipedia, add a "NOT" in places that change the meanings of stuff and it's hard to catch that. I personally, have gone on to wikipedia and done stuff like that just to show I can to help discredit it's legitamacy.

[Neo]

just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it reliable. You can put political spins on wikipedia, add a "NOT" in places that change the meanings of stuff and it's hard to catch that. I personally, have gone on to wikipedia and done stuff like that just to show I can to help discredit it's legitamacy.
So basically you are admitting to vandalism to further your own aims?

Stephen Colbert did the same on the Reality Article. It was fixed within a few seconds.

The point of a wiki is to contribute to, and to fix errors you find. Adding to a wiki by introducing deliberate errors is immature and juvenile. Doing so doesn't somehow make your claim valid.

None of this stops a student from simply using Wikipedia's own sources though. Treat wikipedia as a sort of "Portal to the True Sources" or something. I use wikipedia often for general lookups, but if I want to learn more, I usually check out the sources they actually cite.

Teaching them to cross-reference seems like the more important thing here, rather then banning Wikipedia.

At first I thought this was going to be a topic about picking an article in Wikipedia and assigning a class to "fix it up" or even to create a new article from scratch, eventually ending in the possibility of it being featured on the front page (though I have no idea how that could be worked into a lesson).

-Neo

[Unregistered]

just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it reliable. You can put political spins on wikipedia, add a "NOT" in places that change the meanings of stuff and it's hard to catch that. I personally, have gone on to wikipedia and done stuff like that just to show I can to help discredit it's legitamacy.

Why thank you for contributing to the very thing that makes the internet such an unreliable place in the first place. Fortunately, wikipedia has these things called "editors" and "administrators" that look for these kind of things and fix them... Also, I fail to see the relevance in the quote you cited in this...

[AussieHouseDad]

just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it reliable. You can put political spins on wikipedia, add a "NOT" in places that change the meanings of stuff and it's hard to catch that. I personally, have gone on to wikipedia and done stuff like that just to show I can to help discredit it's legitamacy.
So on those days the staff of wiki where chasing you around instead doing legit work on the wiki, well done!

10 Points for hampering a global project set up to help people like you.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

Bew hew - maybe if they didn't try to pass themselves off as a credible source, I would feel bad.

[AussieHouseDad]

In a wiki you are the source, so if you are deliberately making the information false, then the unreliable element, is you!

[ComSci101]

He's right you know... A wiki is as credible as the people who edit it... The only reason sites like wikipedia aren't seen as credible is the fact that people vandalize them. It really doesn't matter whether it was to "prove a point" or not, it still makes you seem un-credible and immature...

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

I am unconcerned what you think of my tactics. But as long as people try to use wiki as the Holy Scriptures of online resources, I will continue to show how it's not credible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_new_orleans

Chocolate_New_Orleans - a studly, ruggedley good looking man who teaches school. With a "member" that goes past his knees, C_N_O has sewed a few oats in his time.

uh oh, wikipedia said it so it must be treeewwww :rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

So i clicked on the link, and look what i found:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)
If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add:

{{hangon}}
to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page.

This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

Please consider placing {{subst:nn-warn|Chocolate new orleans}} ~~~~ OR {{subst:nn-warn|Chocolate new orleans|header=1}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)
If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add:

{{hangon}}
to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page.

This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

Please consider placing {{subst:nn-warn|Chocolate new orleans}} ~~~~ OR {{subst:nn-warn|Chocolate new orleans|header=1}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

---


This 'page' will probably be gone in an hour or so.

[AussieHouseDad]

@CNO
Wiki started out on very shady ground. But now every article has many links to many different sources that teachers and schools do find credible.
Many (1000's) more people who are credible have signed on and want to see it work. The idea with all the links in every article is for it to become an academic reference library of all pertinent information on the internet.

I totally agree with you that you should except absolutely no work off any student that sites wiki as a source, but you shouldn’t discourage students from going there as a means to begin there research for a project and finding other sources.

I truly think you should attempt to re-open your mind to it and give it another evaluation with the idea of referencing other sources.

Wiki and our children would benefit greatly by the participation of teacher like you. But at the least, please stop hindering it.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

I figured it would be deleted soon enough, that's why I quoted what I had said. But the point remains that just because wiki says it, doesn't mean it's accurate as you could be the unfortunate person that logs on, and finds the inaccurate info (no matter how briefly it may be on there), and uses it for a report.

[ComSci101]

I figured it would be deleted soon enough, that's why I quoted what I had said. But the point remains that just because wiki says it, doesn't mean it's accurate as you could be the unfortunate person that logs on, and finds the inaccurate info (no matter how briefly it may be on there), and uses it for a report.

And thats why we're suggesting cross-referencing... Seriously, have you actually read anything thats been said here?

[Unregistered]

Hey dude, you don't read these posts real thoroughly, now do ya? You are quick to respond without adequate reading comprehension apparently.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

bwahaha - I didn't realize that the wikipedia staff frequented this site. What's the deal? Do you guys have stock in that fake site?

wikipedia = banned list of sites allowed for any Social Studies project in my site, no matter if you guys agree with it or not.

[ComSci101]

Chocolate, I suppose it doesn't matter whether you use it or not... We're trying to make sure teachers of some caliber know that wikipedia is definitely a good source if used correctly...

[Unregistered]

It is important to teach students first how to gauge the reliability of a website prior to doing research on the web. My students utilize Wikipedia as a starting point for research; that is, they try to find the original source for the information found there and then use the criteria we learned to analyze the validity of the information. It is about teaching students to be critical thinkers and not turn in sloppy research. So Wikipedia is a useful tool, but must be evaluated as one should do for any other source found on the net. Good researchers should get corroboration for their facts and not rely upon single sources.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

wikipedia is only good for curiousity purposes and getting initial answers. But I'll be hard pressed to EVER consider it a reliable source.

To me, using wiki is just like using a 12 y.o. cousin as a primary source. Sure, my cousin may know that W. is president, but does that make him an expert on presidential policies in the Iraqi war? Hell no. And now you guys want to tell me that a website that said 12 y.o. can go to and EDIT to say what he wants it to IS a credible source?

and comsci, you want to judge MY caliber for having standards? lawlz!!!11 That's rich.

[ComSci101]

Choc, standards are one thing, but when those standards can't even grasp the concept of a wiki, it's quite another. How is a wiki like using a 12 year old as a source? A wiki is more accurately described as a poll, you know "wisdom of the masses". Are there going to be inaccuracies? Yes. But there are going to be just as many when its only a few people editing the document. You starting to see the point?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

information by popular opinion isn't reliable.

Ask students to define your job as a teacher... Popular opinion will say you just take roll, assign work, grade work, assign more work. So is that a true description of your job? So just because the majority of your students think that, does it make it true?

[ComSci101]

.
Ask students to define your job as a teacher... Popular opinion will say you just take roll, assign work, grade work, assign more work. So is that a true description of your job? So just because the majority of your students think that, does it make it true?

Also an inaccurate comparison. Asking students something they can only assume is slightly different than a site that has editors who do know what they are talking about patrolling them...

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

Also an inaccurate comparison. Asking students something they can only assume is slightly different than a site that has editors who do know what they are talking about patrolling them...

so what, a bunch of Dungeon and Dragons web geeks come up with a consesus by popular opinion and I'm supposed to beleive it.

They can put their political slant on it
have the consensus not have a fuggin clue about something and guess (still a consensus)
or not have a clue if something is inacurate and leave it.

Wiki is for people who DON'T want to research anything, face it.

I think I'm about to go 'vandalize' that site some more.

[AussieHouseDad]

so what, a bunch of Dungeon and Dragons web geeks come up with a consesus by popular opinion and I'm supposed to beleive it.

They can put their political slant on it
have the consensus not have a fuggin clue about something and guess (still a consensus)
or not have a clue if something is inacurate and leave it.

Wiki is for people who DON'T want to research anything, face it.

I think I'm about to go 'vandalize' that site some more.

That’s not true. Many of the people that contribute to wiki are people just like you. I'm quite certain if there was an error on an article that related to the subject you teach that you would notice it.

There really is no sense in doing your best to disrupt some thing that took 1000's of man hours of work to create.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

entertainment knowing that I can enrage people like you who think it's a legit site.

[AussieHouseDad]

entertainment knowing that I can enrage people like you who think it's a legit site.
If I where enraged I think I would be calling you names as I have seen others do. To some extent I can't help agree with them.
I have no doubt you give your students nightmares, perhaps even some of the faculty, but you are probably a very good teacher.
Wouldn't bother trying to talk you in to supporting it over vandalizing it otherwise.

[Unregistered]

I figured it would be deleted soon enough, that's why I quoted what I had said. But the point remains that just because wiki says it, doesn't mean it's accurate as you could be the unfortunate person that logs on, and finds the inaccurate info (no matter how briefly it may be on there), and uses it for a report.

But like i said before, EVERYBODY can make his own website. So ok, then they don't go to wikipedia, but to a private site that is possibly even more wrong.

I can make a real encyclopedia to if i really wanted to, and put it full with bogus information.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

But like i said before, EVERYBODY can make his own website. So ok, then they don't go to wikipedia, but to a private site that is possibly even more wrong.

I can make a real encyclopedia to if i really wanted to, and put it full with bogus information.

and you could call it wikipedia

[ComSci101]

and you could call it wikipedia

That comment makes no sense... Of course they could call it wikipedia. (Of course, that name would be incorrect, since all a wiki is, is a site that gets edited directly by it's users) What was the purpose of that comment?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

That comment makes no sense... Of course they could call it wikipedia. (Of course, that name would be incorrect, since all a wiki is, is a site that gets edited directly by it's users) What was the purpose of that comment?

becauase a made up encyclopedia that you could make up would be the exact same thing that wikipedia is, made up and unreliable.

[ComSci101]

becauase a made up encyclopedia that you could make up would be the exact same thing that wikipedia is, made up and unreliable.

What kind of teacher were you again? I certainly hope it isn't English because that was almost incomprehensible. And, no it still wouldn't be what wikipedia is, for the very reason that I've stated before... But, just because people who don't know what they are talking about can contribute, that doesn't necessarily make it "a made up encyclopedia".

[daddyman]

I teach English and my students actually write articles for wikipedia. Most often it's fairly basic, but occasionally one of them does really well. The assignment (instead of writing a boring 'ol paper) motivates them more and helps them understand some of the pitfalls of using it as a source.
It's also shown them how tenuous the information can be, as occasionally their articles are deleted, though they are legitimate.

[Mr. H]

I don't see the problem, that is the whole reasoning behind citing sources, to determine the argument's validity. If they feel the need to use Wikipedia or any other on-line sources, they need to cite them. I've always heard that students should be expected to use more than one source, either way. When I was an undergrad, we had to use at least three different types of sources, periodicals, published works and internet sites. We were informed of the possible misinformation that abounds on the internet, so were encouraged to verify that the websites were in accordance with the other two sources. Bibliographies are the key and most students, upon entering college don't know how to make one. Why not teach them in high school. When my kids are doing reports and presentations in class, I expect a bibliography, even if it's an opinion paper.

[Unregistered]

As a student, this has shown me the truth! Forums like this for teachers can be just as immature as forums I use with people my own age. Vandalizing the great wikipedia, shame on you!

Truthfully, I've done the same thing. After doing it to about three pages (that were fixed within minutes), I was IP banned. I know it isn't the most reliable thing on the net but it's not completely horrible. They try to keep it as accurate as it can be, but people screwing it up just to prove their point doesn't really help out at all. Just don't let us cite Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source :-D.

[Unregistered]

Research on the internet is divided between two tiers. The upper tier contains the government and organizational websites, internet journals articles, etc... that are well established and have good reputations. These are sites that you can probably use and take their credibility to be equivalent of some publication. The lower tier is just about any other website, forum, etc... in existence.

Wikipedia has the same reliability as a low tier internet source because the big thing harming the credibility of low tier sites is that we don't know the author of the information and the credibility of the author.

This is why, if you disallow wikipedia use in classrooms, then to be rational you must also disallow any low tier internet sites as resource (e.g. only reputable websites allowed). I have no problem with teachers teaching kids that Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but I do have a problem when teachers single out wikipedia, ban it, and then say to the kids that all other sites are okay.

The best way to approach this, I think, is just to teach the research process well and describe in detail why we should approach wikipedia just like we approach any unknown internet website (i.e. cross reference).

For informal research though, I find wikipedia to be wonderful. Whenever I come across an unfamiliar term, I wiki it up and usually there's very descriptive information. I love the idea of wikipedia, and I think it's very convenient for people who love learning.

[Unregistered]

I'd have to agree that wikipedia is pretty unreliable considering that it runs like a democracy and political motivations are apparent. You even have nonsense articles covering such politically incorrect topics such as "Black or White people", "The race of Jesus", etc.. It is an opinionated website and I know from experience. If their are varied view points on a particular subject, then who ever has the most resilience in winning an edit war or if most people agree with a certain view point, then that view will have priority. In addition, some wiki members argue their own points by way of digging up sources that are sometimes outdated, misrepresented, and hard to check. An out of print book may be cited, or an author/researcher with a year next to them, or a broken website link, while at the same time there may be other sources abroad that contradicts the sources used yet for biased reasons that source is neglected. Also their definition of a "reliable source" is subjective. I wouldn't recommend wikipedia to anybody who's looking for accurate information and I suggest instead that one find their own references to a particular topic or use theirs but not to heed how that source is represented since you're quite possibly reading a misinterpretation by some layman who barely understands the source he/she uses.

[Untamed Shrew]

My school had the experience of children editing the Wikipedia articles themselves in order to make themselves appear "correct."

What was sad was that the art teacher didn't know this, and accepted their citations as valid until she was told by another teacher *ahem* that this had occurred.

Wikipedia is only "authority by consensus" and there are a lot of "vandals" out there who mess with the citations.

[Unregistered]

The point is evaluating websites. We must teach students about the ownership and purpose of sites: .com, bz, gov, org, edu, etc. Further, we have to point out homepage sites, and the purpose of certain web pages within sites. I tell my students that I would not recommend a gov site for certain topics related to the war in Iraq! Neither would I recommend PBS for some religious information despite well-researched shows on Christianity and Islam. They still contain a lot of opinion and interpretation. On that same basis, I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia.

Since my students must cite an encyclopedia article, and since Wikipedia has known errors, I won't allow it as a citation. There are enough encyclopedias online and in print for them to select.

That said, we also discuss recent copyright date--especially true for science, author credibility, historical perspectives, and the fact that even facts are in dispute. Students over the years have shown me birthdates in sources that did not agree! They find out soon enough that there are credibility issues.

So the issue is a complex one. I am disappointed to see teachers arguing here with such relish--assuming they really are teachers. Liking to "fight" is not a positive or balanced trait for a teachers who are to model care and compassion.