Wikipedia Not Suitable As A College Reference

Wiki­pe­dia has a great many merits — con­veni­ence per­haps being the greatest, the poten­tial sub­ver­sion of unjus­ti­fied hier­ach­ies being another (though I’m less con­vinced about now). But, the danger is always present that Wiki-dependency might short­cut the edu­ca­tional pro­cess, both for col­lege stu­dents and lifelong learners.

Rick Mans­field has hig­lighted an example of a col­lege dis­cour­aging stu­dents from citing Wiki­pe­dia in assign­ments. Whilst I don’t agree with Rick about encyc­lo­pe­dias not being suit­able for ref­er­ences, since some sub­ject spe­cific ones (a com­meter cites the Stan­ford Encyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy and the Rout­ledge Encyc­lo­pe­dia of Philo­sophy also deserves a men­tion) are rep­res­ent­ive of the latest thought — I do concur with his asses­ment of Middlebury’s actions.

Any Encyc­lo­pe­dia should act as the first, not last stop in a research pro­ject, espe­cially at col­lege level or above. All my theo­lo­gical col­lege papers in Bib­lical Stud­ies and Theo­logy star­ted with a review of the ISBE. This helped me first famil­i­ar­ise myself with the schol­ary debates, but also allowed me to sup­pli­ment and interog­ate the set read­ing lists. But, the real work (think­ing and learn­ing) star­ted when one was faced with primary texts and live, cur­rent debates. By the time I had a little exper­i­ence in mark­ing papers, it was pretty easy to sep­ar­ate those essays trapped at the encyclopedic/dictionary level from those that had grappled more pro­foundly with the question.

Under all this is an issue that maybe isn’t stated often enough or clearly enough. Edu­ca­tion, real edu­ca­tion, trans­form­at­ive and hori­zon expand­ing edu­ca­tion, is hard work.

If your goal is to be well versed in theo­logy and cul­ture (or Bib­lical stud­ies, or church his­tory, or whatever), it will take time and it will take effort. There is always the option of being an imposter or a char­latan — pre­tend­ing to be well read and so on; lots of people take that road I guess. But, to do it for real is not easy, not con­veni­ent and not without sacrifice.

That’s why I think it not only right, but import­ant for ter­tiary insti­tu­tions to clamp down on Wiki­pe­dia and help stu­dents learn to use it respons­ib­il­ity. This isn’t a ques­tion of intel­lec­tual elit­ism, it’s a ques­tion of intel­lec­tual honesty.

Tech­nor­ati Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Wikipedia Not Suitable As A College Reference”

  1. Adam G. says:

    When I star­ted col­lege in 1994 in Mis­souri, the Inter­net was a new thing. I remem­ber over­hear­ing the lib­rar­i­ans dis­cuss­ing what “URL” stands for and how it would be appro­pri­ate to list a “URL” in the works cited. One day I was using the col­lege Inter­net (none of the stu­dents I knew had it on their home com­puters yet) when I very dis­gruntled fellow stu­dent asked me how to look up Colin Powell on the com­puter. He seemed to resent being given an assign­ment involving look­ing up info on a com­puter, espe­cially with this com­pletely alien thing called “the World Wide Web.” How things have changed! I agree com­pletely that Wiki­pe­dia should not be used for col­lege pro­jects. Leave it to us bloggers!

  2. Adam thanks for your com­ments and yes I can also remem­ber some very inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tions when first trying to ref­er­ence online mater­ial in essays.

  3. R. Mansfield says:

    Fernando, per­haps I should have been more spe­cific in my post. I agree with your state­ment about spe­cial­ized encyc­lo­pe­dias. I was speak­ing more of gen­eral encyc­lo­pe­dias such as the Wiki­pe­dia and Britannica–both of which can be used as start­ing points of researh, but not final sources.

  4. Sounds like we are in agree­ment then.

    Inter­est­ing side-story. When I was a theo­logy under­grad, one the stu­dents with the best GPA my col­lege ever saw used to use his NIV study Bible as his first move on all Bib­lical stud­ies essays (he Majored in OT. He would go from the study Bible notes to a first draft, then hit the lib­rary journ­als and com­ment­ar­ies to pad that out. He man­aged to pro­duce some really well writ­ten essays but it was start­ling how little breadth there was to his reading.

Switch to our mobile site