Wikipedia at (nearly) twenty: Worth a second look?

Posted by on


Your eyes are not deceiving you, I am writing about Wikipedia in our library blog! It's been around, as of January 2021, for twenty years. Most websites don't survive to celebrate their 20th birthday! What does that tell us about Wikipedia? Every student knows about it if only because they've been told by teachers, librarians, and more not to cite it as a source! The nature of Wikipedia's crowdsourced information and open-source editing sent chills down the spines of those of us who have been called "information snobs" (i.e. librarians) when it first arrived on the scene. I prefer information purist. Is that even possible? To be an information purist? Can we truly track the source of a news story to the origin, check to see who is behind the article, website, podcast, or tweet? This is the challenge in an era of ubiquitous technology and confirmation bias. What we can do is develop critical fact-checking skills that require us to look laterally at our information sources instead of vertically as we have so often done (and taught!) in the past.

Lateral reading requires opening multiple tabs and searching for information about the web source, its purpose, and the identity of the person or organization responsible for the site.

In many ways, Wikipedia seems delightfully old-fashioned in its warnings for further citations, or if an article does not have a neutral point of view, or is a  locked controversial article to protect it from Wikipedia vandalism. Certainly, the rampant retweets and reposting of articles on social media platforms with the retweeter's commentary seem to be disseminating disinformation faster and with more deleterious effects than Wikipedia. The premise behind the idea of a free "encyclopedia" with contributions from experts on topics too numerous to count and shared across the globe is laudable, even if difficult to manage by the very nature of its magnitude. Yet, here we are reconsidering this free resource as a fact-checker's tool and just what we and our students need to find the origin and purpose behind sources all too readily accepted as fact.

My Wikipedia reconsideration journey started this summer after attending the ALA (American Library Association) Annual (virtual) conference. One of the seminars introduced the SIFT model of information evaluation for college students: Stop, Investigate, Find better sources of information, Trace the origin. During this same seminar, the presenter shared the work of The Stanford History Education Group called Civic Online Reasoning.

One of the first lessons on the Civics Online Reasoning portal is about lateral reading and teaches the process fact-checkers use to consider the accuracy of claims made on websites and in news sources. Imagine my surprise when I learned that vertical reading of a website, never moving off of the site to establish authority was not how we should be teaching students to investigate sources. Lateral reading requires opening multiple tabs and searching for information about the web source, its purpose, and the identity of the person or organization responsible for the site.

Here is the true power of Wikipedia; using it to read laterally and harvest good citations raises its value in developing the skill of being a discerning consumer of information. The process of lateral reading is disarmingly logical. No website is going to divulge, in the "about" section, political leanings, or lack of scientific evidence that would demonstrate bias or questionable scientific authority. A quick search online (Pro Tip as John Green says) by searching the URL and Wikipedia will take you to the Wikipedia article about a website or its author along with additional and often rich citations to help the user discern the usability of the information. The sources for a Wikipedia article are expected to meet the criterion of verifiability.

Here is the true power of Wikipedia; using it to read laterally and harvest good citations raises its value in developing the skill of being a discerning consumer of information.

You should try this! It's amazing how quickly one can find the information that helps you to determine the usefulness of a source. More importantly, we must teach our students to do this routinely. So much more of their work has become "outward facing" and not just for Wheeler's eyes only. In that context, students must be certain that the source of their information is credible and without bias. Establishing authority in a few short clicks is a life skill we need to develop and consistently direct our students to do as well.

I would still caution our students not to consider Wikipedia an academic resource or a place for one-stop shopping for conducting research. However, at its very best, Wikipedia gives an overview of millions of topics linked to credible sources and a starting point for further investigation. As a useful tool to ensure the information you are sharing as a student researcher or teacher is credible, Wikipedia most definitely deserves a second look!

Resources:

Civic Online Reasoning, Stanford History Education Group
John Green, Crash Course: Navigating Digital Information #5


School Librarians United: Using Wikipedia Wisely