Using Wikipedia for Developing Information Literacy Skills

Originally, my opinion about established versus free-citizen-built encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia was that students should not access Wikipedia because anyone can contribute to it, and so it is not a credible and reliable resource. Also, the temptation of cutting and pasting is there for the student who leaves their assignment for the last possible moment. Instead, I suggested that students should use a combination of books, peer reviewed journal articles, and Internet web sites for their research projects. However, after reading the recommended articles and a few additional articles cited below, I have changed my mind about Wikipedia and learned that Wikipedia has value as a resource.

Before, my response to students when inquiring about why they could not use Wikipedia was that there are many inaccuracies posted and that professors in university do not accept Wikipedia as a resource, so you should practise using the databases as much as possible. Like many others--teachers, students, and parents--I am guilty of using Wikipedia for a quick reference; many people turn to Wikipedia when they are looking for quick answers about a certain topic. After reading many postings by most people in this class and before reading the articles for discussion, I changed my response to the students by suggesting that Wikipedia is a good starting point for checking references, terminology, and becoming familiar with a research topic-as suggested in Harris' (2007) article of a method for using such a popular source. Harris (2007) also claims that Wikipedia is "reasonably accurate" and that it is "more productive to teach colleagues, students, and parents how to best use Wikipedia." Contrary to Harris' (2007)claim about Wikipedia being "reasonably accurate," Berenstein (2006) states that there are many inaccuracies in Wikipedia and Britannica and researchers should consult a variety of sources. Berenstein (2006) states that Wikipedia is a "work in progress"; anyone can add an article, edit an article or delete an article. Some experts have found many articles in Wikipedia with "flaws" and others have found many "articles capable of satisfying most experts." Consequently, what is important is that teacher-librarians teach students, parents, and teachers critical thinking skills. It is a mistake for "users who rely on one source." Teacher-librarians must provide a variety of sources for research projects.

Surprisingly, probably in response to Wikipedia's wide popularity, in a more recent article, "Britannica Gets Wikified" (2008) Britannica is moving away from the more traditional approach to a more open source approach by "promot[ing] greater participation by both expert contributors and readers with hopes of creating an online community that will engage thousands of scholars and experts, as well as regular users." The purpose of this new collaborative effort is to "create more coverage and content." The difference between Wikipedia and Britannica is that Britannica's contributors have "total control" of the article and the author "decides whether to permit others to contribute." This move to a open source makes a lot of sense considering how popular Wikipedia is. By using scholarly and expert contributors, Britannica is addressing the reliability and credibility issue that opposers of Wikipedia complain about.

To go one step further in using Wikipedia as a valuable resource, it is important that the student learns how to determine the best source. How can students learn critical analysis skills if they are not allowed to access Wikipedia? Teacher-librarians can model lessons around questioning information and challenging inaccuracies. Maehre (2009) asks, "Why worry about who the author is when you are able to see something so much more useful and revelatory?" Maehre's (2009) argument in the article, "What It Means to Ban Wikipedia," is "students learning by engaging in a process versus producing a product, and students thinking individually and evaluating." Rather than banning Wikipedia or using Wikipedia to become familiar with a topic, finding terminology, or checking references, let the students "question information" and look for second opinions. He suggests that teacher-librarians point out the Wikipedia's article discussion section and discover the "rich and challenging world of textual analysis." Students would see the "close-reading and debate of text" from readers. Students would see the process of "knowledge creation" in action, research a variety of sources and form their own opinions. As we can see, Wikipedia is a valuable resource in teaching information literacy skills.

References
(2008). Britannica Gets 'Wikified.' School Library Journal, 54 (7), 12. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Berenstein, P. (2006). Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kid's All Right (Cover Story). Searcher, 14 (3), 16-26. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Harris, C. (2007). Can We Make Peace with Wikipedia? School Library Journal, 53 (6), 26. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Maehre, J. (2009). What It Means to Ban Wikipedia. College Teaching, 57 (4), 229-236. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Miller, S. (2007). Wikipedia vs. Databases. School Library Journal, 53 (8), 11. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.