Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some Colleges Cautiously Embrace Wikipedia (chronicle.com)

Posted by msmash on from the synergies-emerge dept.

Megan Zahneis, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Academics have traditionally distrusted Wikipedia, citing the inaccuracies that arise from its communally edited design and lamenting students' tendency to sometimes plagiarize assignments from it. Now, LiAnna Davis, director of programs for Wikipedia's higher-education-focused nonprofit arm Wiki Education, said, higher education and Wikipedia don't seem like such strange bedfellows. At conferences these days, "everyone's like, 'Oh, Wikipedia, of course you guys are here.'"

"I think it's a recognition that Wikipedia is embedded within the fabric of learning now," she said. One initiative Davis oversees at Wiki Education aims to forge stronger bonds between Wikipedia and higher education. The Visiting Scholars program, which began in 2015, pairs academics at colleges with experienced Wikipedia editors. Institutions provide the editors with access to academic journals, research databases, and digital collections, which the editors use to write and expand Wikipedia articles on topics of mutual interest. A dozen institutions, including Rutgers University, Brown University, and the University of Pittsburgh, are participating.

5 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Fine, but by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even in the old days, you wouldn't use an Encyclopedia to get a general overview of a topic that you were unfamiliar with. For a topic you cared about, you would look for something more in-depth.

    Wikipedia is better than the old days because of the citations, and because of its greater breadth. However, it's not an authority on anything, and is often wrong. If it's a topic you care about, you need to look at the sources and citations. You can't use it for anything more than an entry-point to knowledge.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Fine, but by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have always considered Wikipedia to be an overview and an index. It does rapidly collect some of the best articles on a given subject. Especially if you look in the history for citations that have been removed!

    2. Re:Fine, but by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the 8th grade in public schools, teachers stop accepting Encyclopedias as a source. I don't see why we should accept Wikipedia as a source either.

      This isn't to say that even in College or even Post-Grad work that Encyclopedias or now Wikipedia isn't useful for research, but it is used as a start of knowledge. Just because if you are looking at something new, you may not even know what questions to ask and what material to read up on, for you to actually get information needed to actually start the real research.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Re:The"Wikipedia" Rewrite by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes that doesn't work. It's usually blindingly obvious when the student has copied a source (paragraph swapping not withstanding) because 99 times out of 100 the writing is far more coherent.

    I think he was saying to use the article for you outline, and write your own text. As organizing your thoughts and presentation can take some time, I can see how this would help. But you would still be writing out the text, and may even have different conclusions... Disclaimer: When I was in school, there was no wikipedia...

  3. Re:Why pay for a Wiki education? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If colleges are just going to tell you to read Wikipedia for four years then why bother going?

    The certificate that gets you past the auto-rejection algorithm at a job interview.