Debating the use of Wikipedia

A former co-worker said on his Facebook page this week that he was surprised at how quickly the Teddy Pendergrass page on Wikipedia had been updated following the R&B singer’s death on Wednesday night.

I paused to think about that comment knowing that an internal tug-of-war about Wikipedia had been bouncing around in my head for a few days.

I come at the whole Wikipedia debate from a different perspective than most in this group. I’m a veteran journalist who plays by the journalism rules. One of those rules in most newsrooms is that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I know the dangers that using a source like Wikipedia can cause. Some might be considered small – getting someone’s age wrong or misspelling a name. But others can be more serious like reporting that someone is dead who isn’t or that someone has been arrested for committing a crime when the person hasn’t.

We also know that racially insensitive and irrelevant information has been found on some Wikipedia pages. This also raises questions in my mind about site’s credibility.

I don’t think Wikipedia should be used by journalists to report stories and I certainly don’t think that students in grades K-12 should use the online encyclopedia to source their work.

As Stephen Colbert shows in “The Word-Wikiality”, his comedic take on Wikipedia, there are so many dangers in relying on it as an authoritative source.
Colbert pokes fun at something we all know – just how easy it is to change something in Wikipedia. He laughs at how easy it is for users to create their own reality. “Any user can change any entry and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true,’’ he says.

When it comes to shaping the minds of young people, this is not a laughing matter. The technology that is available to us today has changed our lives and will continue to in many ways. But it’s important that those of us who are charged with preparing students for the task of running our society don’t shortchange them. Students should know that research assignments are meant to be rigorous for a reason. The assignments are meant to challenge them in many ways, including developing and verifying several sources for the materials that they use in their work. If we allow assignments that are pulled together with a minimum amount of work and with the only source being a run through Wikipedia, we’re not doing our jobs.

But beyond Colbert reminding us of the ease with which Wikipedia can be changed, he also reminds us how easily people can be intimidated into not challenging others even if they know the others are wrong.

“If you go against what the majority of people perceive to be reality, you’re the one who’s crazy,’’ jokes Colbert.

So I advocate that we don’t allow students to use Wikipedia to source their research papers. And with our ever improving technology that allows us to carry hundreds of books on a Kindle, Sony Reader or similar device, we should encourage students to seek more sources, to do more research and to challenge more of their own thinking and that of their fellow students.