Toolbox
- size +

Once shunned by academics, Wikipedia now a teaching tool

Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the upstart Internet encyclopedia that most universities forbid students to use, has suddenly become a teaching tool for professors.
Recently, university teachers have swapped student term papers for assignments to write entries for the free online encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is an "open-source" web site, which means that entries can be started or edited by anyone in the world with an Internet connection.

Writing for Wikipedia "seems like a much larger stage, more of a challenge," than a term paper, said professor Jon Beasley-Murray, who teaches Latin American literature at the University of British Columbia in this western Canadian city.

"The vast majority of Wikipedia entries aren't very good," said Beasley-Murray, but said the site aims to be academically sound.

To reach its goal of academic standards, said Wikipedia's web site, it set up an assessment scale on its English-language site. The best encyclopedia entries are ranked as "Featured Articles," and run each day on the home page at http://www.wikipedia.com.

To be ranked as a "Featured Article," Wikipedia said an entry must "provide thorough, well-written coverage of their topic, supported by many references to peer-reviewed publications."

Of more than 10 million articles in 253 languages, only about 2,000 have reached "Featured Article" status, it said.

As an experiment, last January Beasley-Murray promised his students a rare A+ grade if they got their projects for his literature course, called "Murder, Madness and Mayhem," accepted as a Wikipedia Featured Article."

In May, three entries created by nine students in the course became the first student works to reach Wikipedia's top rank.

Their articles, about the book "El Señor Presidente" by Nobel prize-winning Guatemalan author Miguel Ángel Asturias, ran May 5 on Wikipedia's home page.

Wikipedia has also designated, but not yet published, a student's biography on Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, and an entry on Gabriel García Márquez's book, "the General in his Labyrinth."

Beasley-Murray said the projects took the students four months, and one entry was revised 1,000 times.

Typically, thousands or millions of people visit a Wikipedia entry, and each visitor is able to edit entries, or even flag an article considered unworthy to have it removed.

Working online with anyone watching or editing "was really hard to get into," said Eva Shiu, a third-year student who worked on the Marquez entry. "But it was really exciting, and I feel like I've accomplished something," she told AFP.

"I got addicted to it ... I was up nights until three or four a.m. in the morning working on it."

Monica Freudenreich, who worked on the Asturias entry, said she liked the fact her contribution will survive online. Usually term papers "end up in a binder than eventually sits under my bed," she wrote on Wikipedia.

The University of British Columbia entries are among some 70 academic projects now registered at Wikipedia, by institutions from Yale University to the University of Tartu, Estonia.

Wikipedia itself invites professors "to use Wikipedia in your class to demonstrate how an open content website works (or doesn't)."

But the experiment has had controversies, including student work that was instantly deleted as not "notable."

"Sometimes it's a disaster," said Beasley-Murray. "But in some ways it's good news ... this was a great learning experience for students."

© 2008 AFP
» Next Article in Technology - Internet: Facebook to let users carry profiles with them

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

4.1 out of 5 after 40 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by BAROSALSA 05/11/08 15:16
Rank: 4.5/5 after 4 votes
If only there were a truly free University that one didn't need to pay tuition but would have to adhere to just the strict rule of studying and completing the work material or subject matter to obtain the degree or its equivalent.
Posted by superhuman 05/11/08 16:07
Rank: 3.71/5 after 7 votes
Wikipedia is the second best site on the internet, the first being google.
Posted by brant 05/12/08 00:55
Rank: 2.67/5 after 6 votes

Is Wikipedia a new fascism of knowledge perpetrated by disaffected leftists: a Wackopedia?

The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia - against its pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against its institutionalized falsification of facts; against its sordid attempts to monopolize knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective memory and replacing them with imprimaturs. Yes, those are all aspects of the cyberbureaucratic fraud that Wikipedia is committing wholesale upon knowledge. The fraud that consists of producing false knowledge on an encyclopedic scale. Now, that's notable about Wikipedia, if nothing else is.

http://www.aether...dex.html
Posted by CWFlink 05/12/08 09:46
Rank: 4.75/5 after 4 votes
I'm not as upset as "brant", BUT...
Wikipedia is too easily used as a "ego trip" by which a self-promoting individual can praise his or her contribution to society far beyond any realistic measure. This is especially true when the contribution is in some obscure (possibly singular) corner of technology. I've seen several postings on physorg.com in which an article in Wikipedia is used to suggest the outstanding credibility of the contributor... only later to note the Wikipedia article was never critically reviewed by anyone.
Posted by CWFlink 05/12/08 09:58
Rank: 4.75/5 after 4 votes
Rating systems could evolve that make Wikipedia more trustworthy:
http://www.physor...555.html

But even then we are left with a system that can promote a consensus view when true progress almost always derives from exploring beyond a consensus opinion.

I applaud Wikipedia as a fascinating study in automating the collection and dissemination of human knowledge, but the greatest lesson to be taught by any university, library or computer based encyclopedia is the lesson of our own fallibility and gullibility.

What needs to be taught is the process of critical thinking and the discovery of independently verifiable facts.

From this perspective, Wikipedia provides an excellent playground in which to learn what NOT to believe in!
Posted by mrlewish 05/12/08 11:14
Rank: 4/5 after 3 votes
The individual in the article professor Jon Beasley-Murray said "The vast majority of Wikipedia entries aren't very good" You have got to be kidding. In general the information is an excellent source. It is not ment to be academic in nature nor does it pretend to be the final word. I think the learned professor is jealous that laymen who have not "earned" their degree in high letters can easily out reference him and probably correct the errors he makes on wiki. I find that a lot of the people out there are as smart as a whip without of that high faluting education. When someone dosn't have to go to experts for their insights or information they lose their value. Pure and simple economics.
Posted by thinking 05/12/08 11:20
Rank: 4/5 after 3 votes
I'm a conservative and find that Wikipedia information very helpful. I let my kids use Wikipedia (under supervision... as there is a lot which is inappropriate for children... as there is in general on the web!!). For teachers who are against it... I tell them to use the references on which the article is based. Wikipedia is a great place to start gathering information.

What I find though.... the more leftist a teacher (or anyone) is... the more they are against Wikipedia... but that is based on my own experience. Is this a common experience??
Posted by mikiwud 05/13/08 03:20
Not rated yet.
The trouble is that entries can be "taken over" by individuals with a political point to push.This is happening in "Global Warming" circles,wih entries being changed to a ridiculous level and changed back after correction.This is most notable in personal attacks on sceptical scientist's personal history (which can be easily checked) to discredit them.
Some form of fairly strict moderation is needed.