A Message to my Past Educators
The reliability of Wikipedia is often questioned and debated among educators, and students are often told not to use Wikipedia for research. I am one of those students who has been taught that Wikipedia is not credible. Throughout my academic career, before attending High Point University, all of my teachers emphasized the unreliability of Wikipedia. They claimed that Wikipedia was not a trustworthy source because it contains freely editable content. The encyclopedia is self-policed and relies on a community of volunteer editors to improve the quality and accuracy of information. Therefore, it seems as if anyone can share whatever information they choose, whether it is true or not.
What is Wikipedia
Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that aims to create a space for everyone to share and access knowledge. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown into the world's largest reference website, attracting 1.7 billion users monthly.
It is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers, and anyone with access to the internet can make changes to articles on this platform. Anyone can add or edit words, references, images, and other media. However, content must be free of copyright restrictions and verifiable against a published reliable source to remain on there.
The Controversy
Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content and community of established users. Because this platform does allow anyone with internet access to make additions or changes to published articles, Wikipedia is often referred to as a mixture of truth, half-truth, and some falsehood. In Edwin Black's article, "Wikipedia — The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge," Black brings to light the issue of the malicious vandalism of entries on Wikipedia. According to this article, numerous entries are vandalized by propagandists. For example, after Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, his biography page was modified by a propagandist or prankster to claim that he was a homosexual. Those who vandalize entries often "revise" them and make deliberately false claims, which could potentially be dangerous. However, despite some issues with vandalism (that are investigated and addressed), Wikipedia is often correct and reliable. This is what some educators fail to acknowledge.
Many teachers argue that the information on Wikipedia is surface level and that students should be profoundly engaging with online content by fact-checking their sources online. Even so, Wikipedia could be utilized as a media literacy tool. While navigating Wikipedia, digital users have the ability to access and analyze media. Each user should take it upon themself to investigate what they read online. Fact-checking is an important skill to have and practice, considering how social media-focused society is today. Further, the "everything goes" concept is simply not valid. For something to stay on Wikipedia, the entry must follow the guidelines put in place by Wikipedia.
My Consensus
I am now confused about why my past teachers were so against Wikipedia. If anything, I think that using Wikipedia could be beneficial for students because it is an online space where they can practice fact-checking. It is the individual's responsibility to stay educated and not spread misinformation. I also think that the "everything goes" idea is very milked. Why would these guidelines for Wikipedia exist if they are not followed to some extent?
Educators should also practice fact-checking and develop their media literacy. Practice what you preach.
