Wikipedia ban in schools an attack of the ignorant

Stan Beer
Sunday, 13 May 2007 16:43

Opinion and Analysis

The news that some schools and teachers in Australia are banning students from using Wikipedia as a source of information for projects is a sad indictment on our education system.

Wikipedia has been subjected to ridicule and criticism because it is a compilation of edited user submitted material rather than the product of learned scholars. To be sure, there have been inaccuracies uncovered in some areas. So how does that make Wikipedia any different to the history textbook that taught me in school that Robert Falcon Scott (of the Antarctic) was a hero instead of a bungler?

In fact, the Wiki is not only far superior to the textbook of my youth, it presents an impressive overview of the man and his life in a nutshell. The Wiki outlines all the arguments about Scott's competencies or lack thereof, and the subsequent mythological status accorded the explorer in the British Empire.

Most importantly, however, the end of the Wiki page on Scott lists a healthy bibliography of further reading, reference sources and links. Thus, if you don't trust the Wiki, it points you to other sources.

Try using the Wiki to research another historical figure, such as Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein and similarly, you will be presented with a wonderfully concise, yet detailed starting point upon which to start a project, complete with an extensive bibliography of further sources to fill out your research.

Unbelievably, there are still some teachers at schools who forbid children to use the Internet to do research for homework or projects because they would rather that they visit libraries and use reference books. Never mind that a student can gather ten times as much information in one tenth of the time without leaving their desk. For some teachers, there's something satisfying about forcing students to do things the hard way (presumably like they had to). Why not force them to use slide rules or log tables instead of calculators? Why not force them to walk five kilometers to and from school each day instead of taking public transport like our grandaddies did?

Concerning Wikipedia, the sad truth is that teachers are only human like the rest of us. So when an article appears in newspapers and on websites like this one that the Wiki has been caught out using a falsely credentialled editor or presenting an inaccurate report, it's tempting for some of them to label this new and innovative knowledge resource as all bad.

My advice to teachers - especially those in the humanities - is to stop trying to limit the ways your students can seek knowledge. If you don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source that's fine. Just tell your students they can use it as a starting point but not a definitive source.

The most interesting answer to the charge that Wikipedia is simply a resource written by unqualified volunteers instead of paid PhDs appears in a comment rebuttal to an article on a site called Techknowledgy Blog:

"The sad truth is that the majority of textbooks, encyclopedias and other resource materials that cover broad areas of study aren't written by Phds but mostly low level employees of the publishing company. If anything is to be learned for Wikipedia it isn't to have students question Wikipedia but instead question all information they are given. Simply because it is published doesn't mean that it is without errors."