There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether or not Wikipedia is a valid research resource in the classroom. I've spent a lot of time ping-ponging back and forth on this subject, truly understanding both sides of the court: Wikipedia is useful, constantly updated and contains more information than any text or scholarly source; or, conversely, Wikipedia is not moderated or reviewed by academic controllers, making the information unreliable.
After considering both these points, here is where I've landed on the question of whether or not I would allow Wikipedia as a source of research in my classroom: yes, as long as there are other sources too.
I love Wikipedia. It constantly feeds my curiosity about different and varied subjects. Since it is constantly edited and reviewed by people like me (regular people!), the information provides perspectives from thousands of writers and contributors. There are more articles on Wikipedia than in any print encyclopedia and more are constantly added. Additionally, scholarly sources are cited and linked to at the bottom of many pages, making it a great place to find articles and texts written by experts in different fields.
I know it has its limitations in academia. You can't ever be 100% sure that what you're reading is accurate, but I have faith in the system of Wikipedia and its contributors. I wouldn't want to discourage Wikipedia use in my classroom because I want my students to love learning the way that Wikipedia allows you to. So yes, I would allow it as a source as long as other sources (from textbooks, peer-reviewed articles, etc.) were also included.
No comments:
Post a Comment