In this weeks readings about established and vs. free citizen-built encyclopedias I have decided that both have their place. As an English and Socials teacher who has used online databases I have outlawed the use of Wikipedia in the past as a source not to be used on assignments and projects. This weeks readings especially Berinstein’s has convinced me that there is some merit to the use of Wikipedia and other free citizen-built encyclopedias.
The Berinstein article mentions that Wikipedia is a good starting point. The article states “It's a lesson in research methodology, a fun way to share expertise, and a groundbreaking new way of working. Its consensus model represents a shift in management styles and away from hierarchical organization. You might say that Wikipedia is Zen-like. Its ever-changing nature means that when you read it, you are completely in the moment. And its collective brain is like a conscious universe in which we are all one”[1]. Next year I plan on allowing my students to use these free citizen encyclopaedias as information gathering sites but not as expert cite hence, no longer outlawed!
The other piece of information that I took from the readings this week came from the Harris article on how we as teacher librarians can use sites like Wikipedia properly. Harris suggests that the following three steps should be taken when evaluating Wikipedia “1) At least three sources are required to verify research. 2) General encyclopedias like Wikipedia are a great place to get started, however...3) Serious research projects cannot cite general knowledge encyclopedias”[2]. If these rule are followed Wikipedia can be used, but other more reputable sources must be used as well.
Yes, Wikipedia is not the great library "evil". Used responsibly it is a wonderful resource - I certainly use it every day, in full knowledge of its limitations.
ReplyDelete