wikipedia: an essential 2-minute guide for students and educators
DESCRIPTION
Wikipedia has been a hotly debated topic when it comes to research. Some people (often students) don't see the problem with it and some people (often professors/educators) refuse to have anything to do with it. The subject really comes down to the vital need to apply strong critical thinking skills while using Wikipedia. Some time ago I created a short (~2 min) slideshow presentation that orients students and educators as to what Wikipedia really is and emphasizes the need to apply good critical thinking skills while using Wikipedia. As educators, I think you will find it useful in having a clear guide on how to evaluate information you yourself might find on Wikipedia. For students, it's really aimed at students who are at or above the level of having to find and use other references in their own research. At this level they will likely be turning to Wikipedia at some point or another in their research, so it is good for them to have the right frame of mind when using Wikipedia. --DylanTRANSCRIPT
WikipediaAn Essential 2-Minute Guidefor Students and Educators
®
Wikipedia isan awesome
source of information.
awesome: inspiring awe or wonder
Wikipedia isa terrible
source of information.
terrible: exceptionally bad or displeasing
Awesome and terrible?
How can it be both?
A "wiki" isa web site that
anyone can edit.
Really? Anyone?Yes. Anyone.
Even that guy over there?Yes, even that guy over there.
Wikipedia isan encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.
Wikipedia isawesome because
anyone in the worldcan contribute their
knowledge.
Wikipedia isterrible because
anyone in the worldcan contribute their
knowledge.Even that guy over there.
If anyone can editWikipedia, there
will be errors.
Sometimes intentional,sometimes accidental.
No matter the reason,there will be errors.
At the same time,since anyone can editWikipedia, anyone cancorrect the errors.
If errors get corrected,what's the big deal
about anyone being ableto edit Wikipedia?
Wouldn't that be considered a good thing in the long run?
Consider this:
What if anyone couldedit CNN.com?
Would you still trust information from
CNN.com?
Ask yourself why you might already trust them.
The trust in Wikipedia'sinformation comes from
citations.
citation: a short note recognizing the source of information
Wikipedia's Policy:
"If no reliable third-partysources can be found for an
article topic, Wikipedia shouldnot have an article on it."
citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
You can't trustinformation if you don'tknow where it came from.
And even then, you have to decide if you trust the source.
Good research is built ona base of trustworthy
sources of information.
Referencing Wikipedia inan essay or research paperis saying, "I asked somepeople on the Internet."
A lot of smart people onthe Internet contribute
knowledge to Wikipedia.
But they gottheir information
from somewhere.
And it wasn't from Wikipedia.
Good Wikipediaarticles have citations.
Use them.
Go to the source.See for yourself.
Decide for yourself.
In closing...
Understand whatWikipedia is not.
It is not a publisher of original thought
or research.citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Understand whatWikipedia is.
It is a powerful tool forfinding information.
Use it.
Edit it.
Contribute.
But don't forget to cite your sources.
Credits and Copyright Information
Wikipedia: An Essential 2-MinuteGuide for Students and Educators
Created by:Dylan Bennett
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.