Op-Ed: Wikipedia ban is a slippery slope
Chandler Koglmeier
Issue date: 2/14/07 Section: Opinions
While I strongly agree that Wikipedia has not been accepted by the academic community due to its free and open nature and any student who pays attention should know this, I take issue with the resolution to ban it as a source. What are your professors scared of? Please tell me an open source online encyclopedia doesn't actually threaten you. Yes, the people of the world have access to it. Yes, anyone can change it. Are you really that scared of general commentary? Are you really arrogant enough to say that the opinions of the general public, albeit a general public who cares enough to get on wikipedia and post about a specific topic, don't matter? To me, this stinks of the beginnings of censorship. According to Wikipedia, Censorship is the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body. While this has not reached that stage, it could approach it quickly. I always thought the point of academia was that there was no censorship. Ideas, no matter how crazy, were embraced and allowed to circulate. Isn't that one of the reasons we grant tenure to our beloved professors?
At this point I'd like to transition and discuss the comments of Professors Waters and Moorsman. Professor Moorsman is quoted as saying "Wikipedia is constantly being adapted and shaped and cut by people who are weighing in on what they know about a topic. It's very democratic, and it's very dangerous in that way." Really? I wasn't aware that Middlebury's faculty was advocating that democracy was dangerous. I happen to agree that it is dangerous, especially to those in power or control of the information ( e.g. Academics), but does that make it wrong? Again, I feel like this is a very slippery slope we are approaching if we begin to discount the thoughts of the recently liberated masses.
My second professor-related comment involves Professor Waters' statement that "It's really a product of the way the information is compiled. The articles can improve over time, but there's always an [emphasis on] change rather than something finalized." I wasn't aware that knowledge was a static thing. If that is the case, then why do I keep learning or writing new ideas? I think you should talk to our nation's medical schools. They seem to have advanced beyond the world of Hippocrates and the Greek doctors in the past few years and might be teaching something that is dangerous. I would like to again restate that I agree with the professors that Wikipedia should not be used for academic purposes because it has not yet been accepted in that way. I simply do not believe that a statement like this is beneficial or necessary. If a student doesn't realize that Wikipedia should not be used and uses it, mark them down as you would for any other incorrect information. Middlebury has intelligent students. We will get the message. A policy like this sends the wrong message and sets forward a dangerous precedent.
I would ask two concluding questions. In our country, which has always valued innovation and change, how can you justify censoring the flow of information on our recently available platform? Secondly, democratization of information is happening. Welcome to the 21st century. Consumer generated content has blossomed in the past few years and the people have truly taken control of the information platforms (see blogs, message boards, online video content for details). What does that mean for academia? Maybe its time for a little academic re-evaluation of truth. If enough people believe it, does that make it true? Isn't acceptance a reality in itself?
At this point I'd like to transition and discuss the comments of Professors Waters and Moorsman. Professor Moorsman is quoted as saying "Wikipedia is constantly being adapted and shaped and cut by people who are weighing in on what they know about a topic. It's very democratic, and it's very dangerous in that way." Really? I wasn't aware that Middlebury's faculty was advocating that democracy was dangerous. I happen to agree that it is dangerous, especially to those in power or control of the information ( e.g. Academics), but does that make it wrong? Again, I feel like this is a very slippery slope we are approaching if we begin to discount the thoughts of the recently liberated masses.
My second professor-related comment involves Professor Waters' statement that "It's really a product of the way the information is compiled. The articles can improve over time, but there's always an [emphasis on] change rather than something finalized." I wasn't aware that knowledge was a static thing. If that is the case, then why do I keep learning or writing new ideas? I think you should talk to our nation's medical schools. They seem to have advanced beyond the world of Hippocrates and the Greek doctors in the past few years and might be teaching something that is dangerous. I would like to again restate that I agree with the professors that Wikipedia should not be used for academic purposes because it has not yet been accepted in that way. I simply do not believe that a statement like this is beneficial or necessary. If a student doesn't realize that Wikipedia should not be used and uses it, mark them down as you would for any other incorrect information. Middlebury has intelligent students. We will get the message. A policy like this sends the wrong message and sets forward a dangerous precedent.
I would ask two concluding questions. In our country, which has always valued innovation and change, how can you justify censoring the flow of information on our recently available platform? Secondly, democratization of information is happening. Welcome to the 21st century. Consumer generated content has blossomed in the past few years and the people have truly taken control of the information platforms (see blogs, message boards, online video content for details). What does that mean for academia? Maybe its time for a little academic re-evaluation of truth. If enough people believe it, does that make it true? Isn't acceptance a reality in itself?
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 11
Brandon
posted 2/15/07 @ 2:35 AM EST
This "ban" is nothing more than a limit upon citation. You're still allowed to consult Wikipedia, just like always. What you can't do is cite it in your paper, which is valid because Wikipedia itself is not a securely authoritative source. (Continued…)
Jim
posted 2/20/07 @ 7:08 PM EST
Maybe they could do us all a favour and change their assignments to find these errors.....and correct them.
I am sure that they allow citations from Britannica. (Continued…)
Larry
posted 2/20/07 @ 7:14 PM EST
The ban implies that the authors of other sites and books are error- or bias-free. That's just plain goofy.
Steve
posted 2/20/07 @ 7:35 PM EST
Here is the problem in a nutshell:
"While I strongly agree that Wikipedia has not been accepted by the academic community due to its free and open nature and any student who pays attention should know this, I take issue with the resolution to ban it as a source. (Continued…)
Nick Baker
posted 2/21/07 @ 10:08 AM EST
I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate source for a college level paper, especially considering the wealth of superior reference sources available at the library. (Continued…)
snotty
posted 2/21/07 @ 11:06 AM EST
as an author of history articles on (mostly the german) wkipedia, i strongly agree with banning the WP as a source for academic work - in fact, it shouldn't even be an issue. (Continued…)
Uncle Sam
posted 2/21/07 @ 3:34 PM EST
information is called information when it's accurate -- not when it's democratically agreed upon
congress declaring there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq so it's time to fight a war is democratic - but false
Marie
posted 2/27/07 @ 3:06 PM EST
What if the information is correct, is it then alright to use it? Not everything on the site is unusable or inaccurate. I guess you could use a "legitimate" source to back up the information you might have originally found on WP, but then of course what's the point! I have found some very useful info there and will continue to use it. (Continued…)
M Olson
posted 2/21/08 @ 1:17 AM EST
Wikipedia is subject to manipulation by anonymous users, particularly those who have requested and received "administrator" status. They can then ban editors often using the excuse of "trolling" (anything they don't like can be called trolling). (Continued…)
Post a Comment