Selecting the Right Resource for the Right Purpose!
By: Patrick D. Huff
Pepperdine University
EDOL 755.20
For: Dr. Kathleen Plinske, PhD
September 27, 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Abstract 3
Selecting the Right Resource for the Right Purpose! 5
Introduction 5
1) Wikipedia – A Reference Authority? 5
2) Exploring the Importance of the Problem 5
3) Relevant scholarship pertaining to Wikipedia’s credibility 6
4) Terms and Definitions 7
5) A simple hypotheses – Wikipedia’s Credibility 8
Method 10
Ancillary analyses 10
Wikipedia External Searches -Use Growth Rate 10
Table 1 - (Wikipedia Search Rates)(March 2007) 10
Discussion 11
1) Is Wikipedia a blessing or a curse? 11
2) How can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be accurate? 12
3) How can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be wrong? 13
Conclusion 14
References 15
Abstract
Since the launch of Wikipedia in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger this “quick” reference online encyclopedia has rocked established educational scholars and encyclopedia publishers. Every since educators and scholars have been asking the following: 1.) Is Wikipedia a blessing or a curse? How can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be accurate? On the other hand, how can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be wrong? The topic dealing with Wikipedia as a “reference authority” and its accuracy or lack thereof arises largely due to Wikipedia’s practice of incorporating large numbers of traditional educational (scholastically acceptable) contributors into its publication while at the same time integrating a mix of publications from a host of non-conventional (scholastically questionable) contributors. The bottom line; can Wikipedia as an information source be trusted. The subject of Wikipedia as a credible collection of knowledge when compared to tried and true traditional publications such as Encyclopedia Britannica with highly researched and scientifically reviewed and approved information brings into close scrutiny any source of knowledge (scientific, historical or otherwise) that is not the subject to the same level of scrutiny by scholars, scientists, and accepted subject matter experts widely recognized within the semiotic domain of literate scholarship, e.g. professional, scientific, scholastic and academic societies. The possible effects of such publications on the established scholastic community could serve to challenge knowledge provided by acclaimed scholars and academicians. In fact, such experts could be proved as being wrong. Being proved wrong by a follow academic peer is one thing, but being proved wrong by someone with no scholastic credentials, institutional education, or approved scholastic standing would be an outrage. Wikipedia’s access or educational information forum by virtue of being open to contributions for “common people” to submit information poses the basis of an educational revolution of the people; the magnitude of which has not occurred since the “Age of Enlightenment” over three hundred years ago (weblog, September 2011). Finally, this paper touches on the effects imposed by a (polyarchy or plutocratic) social-academic elite over that of a (democratic) “open social-academic forum” created and propagated by common people as literary entrepreneurs.
Selecting the Right Resource for the Right Purpose!
Introduction
1) Wikipedia – A Reference Authority?
The question posed by Dr. Plinske in an abstract form could be restated as a focus on Wikipedia, as a “reference authority”. At the core of Dr. Plinske’s question is the degree Wikipedia should be considered an accurate source of information considering the diversity and varied qualifications of its contributors. This paper will attempt to address this query with an additional focus on the following: 1.) Is Wikipedia as an electronic media information source that can be trusted; and 2.) Why would a wide source of contributors to an “online virtual encyclopedia” be cause for an inquiry into Wikipedia’s credibility?
2) Exploring the Importance of the Problem
Globally educators and business leaders continually conduct research and collect information necessary to enhance and advance their knowledge and professional careers. As such, sources of research information used must prove to be reliable and trusted. An expanded synonym for reliability and trust is credibility. Without being able to fully rely on a publication’s credibility and resources; researchers, educators, scientists and credentialed business professionals citing information in their works in support of findings and determinations are placing their reputations (if not careers) at risk. Does this prospect raise a specter of fear among scholars and professionals? Although the sourcing, citation and application of highly credible information is critical to a professional standing, it should not represent or induce fear into the review and consideration of possible information or sources considered for inclusion into research. In fact, such sources have provided outsider observations, information, concepts or theories that have proven to broaden an understanding or approach to new discoveries. Information sources like Wikipedia should be considered and scrutinized in same manner as any other sources by subjecting each to a series of scientific investigation, experimentation, testing, and re-proofing protocols commonly undertaken by any trained professional and credentialed practitioner.
3) Relevant scholarship pertaining to Wikipedia’s credibility
Since Wikipedia’s launch into the global web log (internet) commonly referred to as the “blogosphere”, numerous scholars have served to contribute a considerable amount of their professional energies on the subject of Wikipedia’s creditability or lack thereof as an information source. Scholars closely associated with institutional learning are concern Wikipedia is essentially not a credible source of information. Scholars suggest Wikipedia does not properly vet its publications through approved academicians or scholars in the same way traditional publications do. Traditional encyclopedias are vetted and released through traditional channels of academic and scholarly reviews. Wikipedia has been described as “a flawed and irresponsible research tool” (Seigenthaler, 2008, p. 4).
While completing the research for this paper it became clear Dr. Plinske’s questions pertaining to Wikipedia’s creditability are the subject of considerable controversy (if not an on-going basis of a feud) between established academic traditionalists in education (to include scholastic researchers) and those non-traditionalist desiring to open scholastic research and publications to anyone having a passion and expertise for any given subject. At the core of this dispute is the issue of how information is reviewed and approved by scholars for subsequent publication and consumption (use in research) by research scholars and subsequently incorporated into the established educational system for use in the classroom of accredited educational institutions. Danah Boyd, a doctorial student in the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley and a fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School suggests in his article, Many 2 Many-a group weblog on social software, (Boyd 2005), any research completed on the subject of Wikipedia’s creditability should begin with a clear and concise set of terms and definitions. In accordance with the disciplines this writer practices in the fields of geo-science, engineering and architecture, I would agree.
Research and the development of controlled experimentation, findings and determinations is a scientific process of vetting reoccurring truths that can be trusted and considered credible. As a mature professional practitioner in these fields I would never place my reputation at risk due to unsubstantiated information or material facts being introduced into my findings and determinations. Let’s look at some of the key terms and definitions used in this paper so as to better ensure we are focused on the issue.
4) Terms and Definitions
Protocol in the research and study of any subject drives the introduction and concise description of key terms and definitions used in a project. Considering the semiotic domain and literacy of those outside of that set of highly literate and experienced internet users (scholars) or researchers, the following will serve to define and establish a less complex scope & boundary of this inquiry into the credibility of Wikipedia. Among the key terms used in this inquiry are the following:
1. Wikipedia, “…is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 19.7 million articles (over 3.7 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, (Post, 2011) and it has about 90,000 regularly active contributors. (Yahoo.com)As of July 2011, there are editions of Wikipedia in 282 languages. It has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, (Yahoo.com) (Tancer) ranking seventh globally among all websites on Alexa and having 365 million readers.It is estimated that Wikipedia receives 2.7 billion monthly page views from the United States alone. See attached Table 1(Wikipedia Search Rates, March 2007)
Wikipedia was launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Sanger coined the name Wikipedia, which is a portmanteau (a case or bag used to carry possessions) of wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick")”.
2. Encyclopedia, “(a book or set of books containing articles on various topics,usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject…)”
3. Scholastic or Scientific Academic Process, “Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the large presence of un-academic content has often been noted. Some have noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear” (Dee, 2007) (Lih). “Students have been assigned to write Wikipedia articles as an exercise in clearly and succinctly explaining difficult concepts to an uninitiated audience” (Witzlab, 2009, p. 83).
4. Creditability, “Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture), and because it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes. Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted. Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information; though some scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived” (Priedhorsky, Lam, Terveen, & Riedl, 2007). “A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopedia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors" (Giles, 2005).
The selected definitions cited above are refined so as to focus on the topic of this paper. They may be subject to criticism due to the fact that, yes, they were taken from Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s citations do however demonstrate a balanced posting of supportive and unsupportive contributors. That being said, this writer encourages researchers utilize accepted scientific and investigative journalism protocols and procedures prior accepting any definition or information that may be subjected to review and scrutiny by peers or scholars.
5) A simple hypotheses – Wikipedia’s Credibility
After reading the above definition of Wikipedia and the publications of numerous researchers on the subject of Wikipedia’s credibility, this researcher is struck by the level of controversy Wikipedia’s practices have stirred up within the established academic community.
Having used Wikipedia for about nine years in the practice of private and public business pursuits, this is the first time this writer has viewed the full description of the term; who created it, who contributes to it and what certain intellectuals are taking issue with. It appears academics abhor Wikipedia for the following reasons: 1.) The “free and open contributor” rights to publish information which is presented in an encyclopedic format that is non-conforming to established scholastic practices in the establishment of what is presumed by the reader to be properly vetted (or proven) knowledge, and; 2.) The fact this un-vetted source is being cited by students in academic research and incorporated into work being submitted in traditional educational institute work.
Looking for a moment beyond education, consider the validity of sourced information used in a professional business practice, e.g. finance, accounting, legal, engineering, politics or science. It is essentially the obligation of each certified/licensed professional to ensure his/her resources are in accordance with vetted resources prior to incorporating them into his/her work. In many cases certified/licensed practices lend to the development of information, findings and determinations that are fully vetted, tested and re-proofed by adjacent underwriting agencies (or research institutions) prior to such material being cited or incorporated into a professional’s work. Certainly, in the practice of the law, medical, engineering and architecture, absent a practitioner’s measured and scientific method of approach to his/her work such practices could lead to a level of error as to be causation for loss of credentialing/certification or licensure.
When viewing the dispute pertaining to the use of Wikipedia as a credible source of information in a traditional academic forum this writer is compelled to believe any scholar completing research on any subject would exercise a similar amount of caution together with a system of informational cross-checks prior to incorporating any information into his/her research, findings and determinations. Not doing so could be considered unprofessional and poor practice.
Therefore, a working hypothesis is the following: As long as scholastic academicians continue to caution individuals (students) to always cross-check and review the quality of cited sources of information used in their work, and place a high level of emphasis on engaging in a “scientific process” the credibility of Wikipedia is of little or no concern.
Method
This study was conducted by performing research on the topic as published by a number of subject matter experts (including scholars) in the areas of traditional education, educational reform, social media, and others working in the area of academics, to include methods and practices in scholastic research publication certification processes. Research pertaining to this paper did not include designed scientific study, surveys or interviews with any experts. Research and publications cited in support of this paper were collected primarily from the internet, course textbooks & assigned readings, and from information provided by Dr. Plinske.
Ancillary analyses
Wikipedia External Searches -Use Growth Rate
Notes to Table 1: 1.) This week's Science of Search column is live on the TIME.com website. I'm sure this will touch a nerve with some, but in the article I decided to talk about a trend that we've noticed in the Hitwise Research group, that search term data and traffic patterns indicated that a good portion of visits to Wikipedia were coming from school-aged children most likely researching homework and school projects.
Here's a chart that didn't make it into the column. The growth rate for Wikipedia.org over the last two years was over 680%. The blue line represents U.S. visits to Wikipedia.org, the red line shows the % of visits that Wikipedia received from Google. As of last week, Wikipedia.org was the #1 external domain visited from the Google main search page (after images.google.com). (Weblog 2007)
Table 1 - (Wikipedia Search Rates)(March 2007)
Discussion
Dr. Plinske’s questions pertaining to inquiries into Wikipedia are cause for deeper and more penetrating inquiries into fundamental theories of institutionalized (government controlled) education and traditional scholastic systems. Her question stirs us to consider alternatives and innovation in education. In this case, the alternative of education and knowledge being created and published for all to participate in as a “democratic process” with free and open access versus traditional institutionalized education.
1) Is Wikipedia a blessing or a curse?
Case studies completed by traditional educational theorists indicate open public knowledge forums such as Wikipedia are precipitous to the down fall and decay of highly structured and organized methods of established institutional education and social-academic scholarship. If they are right, then over time the effect on those participating in open and unstructured (unaccredited) educational forums will stand to be discredited and embarrassed by those supporting institutionalized scholastic or academic societies (the intellectual elite). To continue down this institutional path will perpetuate the power of scholastic elitist over the wisdom of many (Kittur, Pendleton, & Suh, 2007).
In the view of this writer, such traditions impose unnecessary restrictions on the introduction of new and evolving concepts or theories. Such limitations placed on free association collaboration and knowledge sharing would be counter to the current growth and contributions to global learning and the advance of human intelligence and collective literacy. Bill Gates in 1999 suggested the internet in the “Information Age” is largely responsible for human knowledge doubling roughly every twenty-five years. After researching various scholars it would appear there is a consensus in favor Wikipedia viewing it as a blessing.
2) How can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be accurate?
The question of Wikipedia’s authors or contributors being inaccurate or outright wrong is a strong possibility and in accord with many scholastic watchdogs representing established and highly reputed publications. In fact, the publication of a non-traditionally proofed scholastic encyclopedia has raised such ire in the academic community that scholars are continually testing, re-proofing and contributing notices and “articles of correction” to Wikipedia. This practice serves Wikipedia’s interest in globally vetting the information it publishes in the full and open eye of its scholastic critics. In many cases these are the same critics that attempt to reduce or limit the use of Wikipedia as a citation source in academic or scholastic works. In addition, the numbers of students and researchers scanning and citing Wikipedia is significantly on the upswing (See Table 1).
Over time as student’s review and provide researched and traditionally vetted feedback to Wikipedia the weblog will continue to improve. This phenomenon only serves to continually increase Wikipedia’s credibility. That being said, Wikipedia still contains errors. As Danah Boyd indicates in his scholastic work on this subject, he deeply respects the level of academic work and scholarship that go into the creation of a dictionary or an encyclopedia, however, he points out that many of these traditional sources contain errors as well. He suggests (students) and academic scholars using Wikipedia should view it for what it is and nothing more. In his view Wikipedia’s contributor information should always be questioned and cross-checked against other sources before “acceptance” of the information. He additionally indicates that Wikipedia offers a diversity of insight many traditional sources don’t. The bottom line; his views make good sense. His augments support the use of Wikipedia as a place to possibly “start” ones research inquiries, but not a place to “end it”.
3) How can a resource with thousands of authors possibly be wrong?
The answer to this question is in part embedded in the research findings pertaining to the accuracy of Wikipedia’s contributors. As referenced in the prior paragraph Wikipedia can and is often inaccurate or wrong due the large number of contributors that are submitting information for publication that has not been run through the rigors of an academic, scholarly review and an acceptance process. As a result, at times information presented in Wikipedia is not accurate. Why beg the question? It is generally known that Wikipedia is competing for academic and scholastic market share against established traditional encyclopedic publishers such as Britannica. All this needs to be placed in proper perspective. As Oedipa suggests in a review on the subject of information cited “…Google, Wikipedia, (and) Britannica, …is a trade-off between coverage and reliability. Google will give you five answers for everything, one of which will eventually turn out to be right. Wikipedia will give you one answer that is more or less serviceable. Britannica will give you either nothing or one answer that is gospel”. (Corante,2005, p. p1)
Conclusion
For this writer the real question comes down how and for what purpose can Wikipedia serve as a useful tool in academic and scholastic research? The answer to this question lies in what the needs or intended use of the information is for the end-user. If a researcher is intending to cite information within the context of a scholastic article for publication it may not be well advised without thorough scrutiny considering the work will be subjected to the rigorous review of senior academicians and society scholars. However, if the researcher needs a place to kick-start his/her neuro-synapses on any particular aspect of his/her study then going to Wikipedia will definitely get that biological nervous system rolling. Again, just be sure to remind yourself not to “end” your research quoting Wikipedia without cross-checking it!
References
Boyd, D. (2005, April). Many 2 many: A group weblog on social software. Retrieved from http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php
Dee, J. (2007, December). All the news that's fit to print out. The New York Times.
Gates, B. (1999). Business @ the speed of thought. New York: Prentice Hall.
Giles, J. (2005, December). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. doi:10.1038/438900a
Grossman, L. (2006, December). Time's person of the year: you. Time.
Kittur, C., Pendleton, & Suh, M. (2007). Power of the few vs. Wisdom of the crowd. Wikipedia, Wiki, collaborative knowledge systems.
Lih, A. (2007). Wikipedia as participatory journalism: reliable resource. 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism.
Oedipa. (2005). A review of many 2 many (p. p1). Retrieved from http://many.corante.com
Post, H. (2011, September). Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Speaks Out. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/29/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-sp_n_941239.html
Priedhorsky, C., Lam, P., Terveen, & Riedl. (2007). Creating, destroying and restoring value in Wikipedia. Association for Computing Machinery.
Seigenthaler, J. (2008, December). A false Wikipedia biography. USA Today, p. B.
Tancer, B. (2011, December). Look who's using wikipedia. Retrieved from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html
Weblog, A. (2007, March). Wikipedia, search and school homework. Retrieved from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html
Weblog, W. (2011, September). Age of reason, age of enlightenment cultural movement. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Wikipedia. (2011, September). Definitions. Retrieved from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Witzlab, N. (2009). Engaging with the world: students of comparative law. Legal Education Review, 83-98.
Yahoo.com. (2011, May). Five-year Traffic Statistics for Wikipedia.org. Alexa Internet
Yahoo.com. (2011, May). Wikipedia says it's losing contributors. Retrieved from http:// search.yahoo.com /404 handler?src=news&fr=404_ news&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikepedia.org/%2 Fwiki%2F Wikipedia&url=http%3
No comments:
Post a Comment