Wikipedia in the Classroom

To the chagrin of many a professor and librarian alike, it is now almost common knowledge that students primarily use internet search engines for their research projects. The problem, of course, is that students often do not take the time to check their sources. I've had more than one chuckle, and tear, after visiting the sites my students took as authoritative. Then in the last year the same site started appearing in many of my students' works cited lists: Wikipedia.

It is not too much to say that student use of Wikipedia has caused problems in the classroom. Students assume it's always true and professor's know it's not. It seems that at least every other week the Chronicle of Higher Education runs a story on the percentage of facts right and wrong on Wikipedia; how these percentages compare to the Encyclopedia Britannica; how some poor student failed because he cited a faulty fact and how many professors are convinced that Wikipedia is the new scourge for students seeking the easy path. Wikipedia is booed as the academic, and moral, equivalent of reading Cliff's Notes instead of the book, only not as accurate.

Reflection on a classroom experience of mine has made me think that Wikipedia actually could be very useful for undergraduate education. I was teaching an Intro to Philosophy course that focused heavily on ancient philosophy. Since there are translations of these works in the public domain I decided we would have no textbook and solely use copies available on the internet. This went smoothly until the site hosting the copy of The Republic we were using crashed. I couldn't find another copy online and so I told my students they would have to buy the book, but it was too late for the college bookstore to order. My students had to buy their own copy from their local bookstores or the internet. There was no use telling them to all get the same copy so I simply told them they had to get a copy with the Stephanus notes (and not everyone even did that). The next class almost everyone had a book and we started reading. While I initially thought it would be a disaster, I came to realize that teaching students how to use Stephanus notes in ancient texts was a good thing.

I was reading my copy to the class and a bashful student raised her hand informing me that her copy did not say the same thing. It didn't. Here the translation was different and several other students registered the same difference. I briefly panicked. How could I teach them The Republic if they had different copies? This was a nightmare, how could I make up an exam without reading all of their translations and making sure each student received an exam that matched their copy. I broke out in a cold sweat at the thought of all the extra work my simple attempt to save them money would cost me. Selfish, I know - but true none-the-less. Then something strange happened. The students with different translations started talking. At first it was only "Really? Show me." and then it evolved into a discussion of whether the difference in translation made any difference: sometimes it did, and sometimes it didn't, but students saw the importance of selecting a translation. They also saw first hand how arguments can change with differences in word choice. Suddenly not every book by the same author was the same. Students started looking for differences and thinking about why they mattered.

Those two weeks were two of the best weeks I've ever spent in the classroom. The experience was spontaneous, and there are always problems with trying to revisit such experiences through planning. Woody Allen found this with lobsters, we often find it with students. I believe this is where Wikipedia presents an opportunity. If we know there are mistakes, tell students to start with Wikipedia and find them. Professors could even give the students a list of approved books for cross-checking purposes. Like the class I had, it gives students an opportunity to see that all references are not created equal. It is because Wikipedia is not perfect, but close enough to make students think it is, that makes it such a good teaching tool.

More on this later ...