Why Wikipedia in the English 102/104 Classroom?
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
What is Wikipedia?
References
1 Black 76
2 Rosenzweig 120
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Almost all of us know what Wikipedia is, and many of us use it.
Did you know that Wikipedia:
•Receives 684 million visitors annually
•Holds 10,000,000 articles in 250 languages
•Is ranked among the 20 most popular websites in the world1
•Is edited about 16 times a minute in the English version
•Word derives from Hawaiian “wikiwiki” meaning “quick” and
“informal”2
Wiki Hazards
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous?
a) Uncertain reliability & verifiability
b) Weakening power/perception of the value of the expert
c) Democratization of information—truth can’t be a popularity contest
d) Concern regarding students’ ability to evaluate sources
e) Concern regarding students’ ability to find academic sources
Wiki Hazards
References
1 Gorman
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
a. Reliability
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous?
a) Uncertain reliability & verifiability
“Wikipedia poses as an encyclopædia when by no stretch of the
definition can it be termed such”1
Wiki Hazards
References
1 Fallis 1665
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
b. Expert
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous?
b) Weakening power/perception of the value of the expert:
“Wikipedia exhibits anti-intellectualism and actively deters people with
expertise from contributing. For example, experts rarely receive any
deference from other contributors to Wikipedia as a result of their
expertise […] Since they cannot simply appeal to their authority,
experts have to fight it out just like anyone else to get their views to
stick in the encyclopedia.”1
Wiki Hazards
References
1 Waters 16
2 Waters 16
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
c. Democratization
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous?
c) Democratization of information—truth can’t be a popularity contest
“[A]ll too often, democratization of access to information is equated
with the democratization of the information itself, in the sense that it is
subject to a vote. That last mental conflation may have origins that
predate Wikipedia and indeed the whole of the Internet”1
“[M]ost of us believe in a real, external world in which facts exist
independently of popular opinion, and some interpretations of events,
thoroughly grounded in disciplinary rigor and the weight of evidence,
are at least more likely to be right than others that are not.” 2
Wiki Hazards
References
1 Achterman 39
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
d. Evaluating Sources
e. Finding Sources
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous?
d) Concern regarding students’ ability to evaluate sources
e) Concern regarding students’ ability to find academic sources
“A 2003 Wellesley College study […] found that 63 percent of
students asked to list Microsoft's top innovations used only the
company's Web site as a source. On a straightforward reference
question, 78 percent of students failed to verify their answers with a
second source.”1
Such studies suggest that today’s students need training in evaluating
the legitimacy and relevancy of information available online.
Wiki Potentials
References
1 See Wilkinson and
Huberman, 2007;
Black, 2007; Giles,
2005; Anthony et al.,
2005
2 Fallis 1668
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
But are all of the accusations against Wikipedia true?
•Multiple recent studies have suggested that Wikipedia articles are
both reliable and valid1
•And, according to UA Professor of Library & Information Science Don
Fallis, “in many respects, Wikipedia is actually more verifiable than
most other information sources.” 2
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
•Knowledge is produced, contestable, and contested
•Evidence for “facts” varies depending on context, situation, and
stakes of reporter/researcher
•The distinction between academic writing and non-academic writing
•How to evaluate & value information
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 “Spanish
Inquisition”
Disucssion.
Wikipedia.com
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
1. Knowledge is produced, contestable/contested
See the Wikipedia “Spanish Inquisition” Discussion Page:
“Oh, and by the way, interesting that the authors think burning humans alive at the
stake […] does not qualify as "torture as punishment". Historical revisionism in
action.” 1
“Look, in a section on historiography, it is not only appropriate, but important,
to set out the arguments of previous historians. You continually want to remove
them as "discredited". True, there have been revisions, but Lea is still considered
fundamental to Inquisition historiography.” 1
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 “Spanish
Inquisition”
Disucssion.
Wikipedia.com
2 “Abortion”
Discussion.
Wikipedia.com
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
2. Evidence for “facts” varies depending on context, situation, and
stakes of reporter/researcher
See the “Abortion” Discussion Page:
“The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the prochoice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact
terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the
fetus.”2
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
3. The distinction between academic writing and non-academic writing
•Wikipedia exists by three major editorial policies—published
information must be reliable, it must be verifiable, and it must not
promote “original research.”
•On the other hand, academic writing necessarily requires original
research building upon peer-reviewed sources.
•Drawing attention to this distinction (and others) between discourse
communities will provoke a strong awareness of research
methodology
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 Wilder B13
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
4. How to evaluate & value information
While the World Wide Web has consolidated a vast amount of
accessible knowledge, it does not automatically teach users how to
determine if that knowledge is worthwhile.
"The typical freshman assumes that she is already an expert user of
the Internet, and her daily experience leads her to believe that she can
get what she wants online without having to undergo a training
program.”1
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
4. How to evaluate & value information
We ought to teach our students not only how to produce scholarship,
but also why research works the way it does. For example,
Why do we cite our sources?
What is the purpose of writing for a peer-reviewed journal?
Why are these sources “more reliable” than other sources?
Why Wikipedia?
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives
students a hands-on way to learn:
4. How to evaluate & value information
This question of “worth” is at the heart of the debate over scholarly
and non-scholarly sources—how do we value information in the
university? Who gets to decide what is valuable?
These issues are powerfully rhetorical in nature—every evaluation of
research must confront questions of “by whom,” “for whom,” “how,”
and “why.”
Disclaimer
References
1 Waters 15
2 Fallis 1665
3 Waters 17
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
What I’m NOT trying to teach with Wikipedia:
•That Wikipedia is an academic source
•That Wikipedia is/should be considered the first and last reliable source
for research 1
•That Wikipedia is a faultless repository of knowledge
•To dismiss the threatening quality that Wikipedia can have for scholars 2
•To dismiss the possibility of misinformation (consider Stephen Colbert’s
campaign to “save” the elephants by changing their population rates on
Wikipedia)
•That we can dismiss the potential for plagiarism 3
This is all true of Wikipedia, but I believe that a focused analysis of the
encyclopedia at the start of the semester will allow students to understand
its dangers as well as its benefits.
Wikipedia & English 102
References
1 “NPOV”
Wikipedia.com
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
In many ways, my course mirrors the standard 102 curriculum:
Like in 102, my students will write:
1. A series of focused rhetorical analyses
2. An academic-style research essay
3. Translation of that essay into a “public” space (Wikipedia)
Just as the controversy essay asks students to balance conflicting
viewpoints, becoming a contributor for Wikipedia requires a writerly
stance dubbed the “neutral point of view” (NPOV).1
This concept of neutrality seeks to represent minority reports only in
proportion to their prevalence in the sphere of public knowledge
about the subject. Therefore, writing for Wikipedia instructs
students in analyzing a source’s credibility and its stake in a
controversial issue.
Even Better…
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
In addition, I think that using Wikipedia will enrich the 102
curriculum in a variety of ways:
•Applied comparison of scholarly research versus writing for a
general audience
•Heightened awareness of what it means to produce & reproduce
knowledge
•Awareness of the power relations involved in knowledge
production and consumption
•Stronger understanding of why and how a source is scholarly,
reliable, neutral, and verifiable
•Extreme publicity, leading to higher-stakes writing
•Attention to conventions and standards of writing in a variety of
contexts (not just MLA)
Public Argument
References
1 Wikipedia.com
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
How does using Wikipedia raise questions of public argument?
•Each article includes a “Discussion,” an “History,” tab, and an “Edit
this Page” section.1
•The “Edit” tab is clear—any user can click in and edit any part of the
article.
•Editors justify any major changes they’ve made to the article in the
“Discussion” section. Here, users locate errors, breaches of the NPOV
policy, and other problems needing correction.
•Through these tabs, users engage in public arguments about
knowledge—the very thing that we as scholars do in our academic
journals.
Public Argument
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
How does using Wikipedia raise questions of public argument?
As they publish their pages to Wikipedia, students will write with an
awareness that their words will be hereafter up for debate, revision,
editing, and rewriting. This materializes the fact that their writing is an
argument, even if it seems to only tell “the facts.”
The benefits of writing for a real audience include:
•Higher stakes writing—someone besides the teacher reads their work
•A stronger sense of purpose
•The weight of ownership (though the anonymity inherent to Wikipedia
might alleviate this weight to an extent)
Other Public Forums
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
If you’re not crazy about using Wikipedia but wish to incorporate digital
writing in your class, consider these sites:
Citizendium.com: A project recently developed by one of Wikipedia’s
original agents, Citizendium seeks articles written by “experts,” or
people with verifiable authority in the area about which they write.
Citizendium writers include some professors.
Blogs—Blogger.com, academic blogs, etc
Other types of Wiki programs
Secondlife (available through UA)
Digital Literacy
References
1 Wysocki 601
2 Hocks 645
3 Wysocki 604
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Furthermore, we expand our students’ literacy practices using
new media writing.
“Literacy is always ideological, tied to what counts as a culture’s favored
communication modes or technologies and to bound by and reproductive of larger
cultural practices”1
“Students need to learn the ‘distanced’ process of how to critique the saturated
visual and technological landscape that surrounds them as something structured
and written in a set of deliberate rhetorical moves. They then need to enact those
visual moves on their own.”2
“Such a pedagogy necessarily involves students not only consuming and analyzing
a wide range of texts, but also producing; as Buckingam argues (2004), ‘to become
an active participant in public life necessarily involves making use of the modern
media’ and engagement in multimodal production provides a ‘basis for more
democratic and inclusive forms of media production in the future.’” 3
References
References
1 What is Wikipedia?
2 Wiki Hazards
3 Wiki Potentials
4 Why Wikipedia?
5 Disclaimer
6 Wikipedia & English 102
7 Even Better…
8 Public Argument
9 Other Public Forums
10 Digital Literacy
11 References
Black, Erik. “Wikipedia and Academic Peer Review: Wikipedia as a Recognised Medium?”Online Information
Review 32.1 (2008): 73-88.
Fallis, Don. “Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 59.10 (2008): 1662-1674.
Gorman, G.E. “A Tale of Information Ethics and Encyclopedias; or, is Wikipedia Just Another Internet Scam?”
Online Information Review 31.3 (2007): 273-6.
Hocks, Mary. “Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments.” College Composition and
Communication 54.4 (Jun. 2003): 629-56.
Rosenzweig, Roy. “Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past.” The Journal of American
History (June 2006): 117-146.
Wallace “The Democratization of Information?” Reference and User Services Quarterly 45.2 (Winter 2005): 100103.
Waters, Neil. “Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class” ACM 50.9 (Sept. 2007): 15-17.
Wikipedia. <http://www.wikipedia.org> 1 December 2008.
Wilder, Stanley. “Information Literacy Makes All the Wrong Assumptions.” Chronicle of Higher Education 51.18
(Jan. 2005): B13.
Wysocki, Anne. “Seeing the Screen: Research into Visual and Digital Writing Practices.” Bazerman, Charles, Ed.
Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008. 599-611.