Wikipedia distresses History Department

Author: Brian Fung

Faculty members of the College's Department of History recently passed a resolution forbidding students from using online interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia for academic assignments. The motion was passed unanimously on Tuesday, Jan. 9 after brief debate and is expected to take effect in February.

Kawashima Professor of Japanese Studies Neil Waters, who grew increasingly concerned with the reliability of the online encyclopedia after students began to cite it on essays and final exams, developed the new policy.

"Students are responsible for the accuracy of the information they give," said Waters. "They can't say, 'I saw it on Wikipedia and therefore that shields me.'"

The departmental statement, which was initially drafted by Waters, also forbids students from including Wikipedia in lists of bibliographic sources.

"Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation," the motion reads, "even though it may lead one to a citable source."

The popularity of online research tools has grown rapidly in recent years. Like most successful Internet ventures, Wikipedia relies on the greater online community for its existence and support.

The Web site employs software that allows multiple individuals to edit the same text, much like the strategy used to develop open-source programming code. A typical encyclopedia entry begins with a brief skeletal outline of a topic, provided by Wikipedia itself. Users then contribute additional information to the entry, which is subject to further updates by other so-called "Wikipedians."

"Wikipedia is constantly being adapted and shaped and cut by people who are weighing in on what they know about a topic," said Assistant Professor of History Amy Morsman. "It's very democratic, and it's very dangerous in that way."

Because of the communal and largely anonymous nature of the Internet, however, scholars have brought into question the strength of Wikipedia's authority from its beginning in 2001.

There currently exists no effective method for definitively authenticating contributors' credentials. Moreover, the site's governing organization lacks the time and personnel to independently verify all of the information contained in its 6.5 million entries.

The encyclopedia instead depends on Wikipedians to correct inaccurate articles, crosscheck them with external sources and police the site for instances of vandalism or deliberate attempts at misinformation.

While one entry about Wikipedia itself assures users that articles "are, in general, reasonably sound," the level of quality control from one entry to another can vary greatly. The College's History Department has therefore retained serious misgivings about the encyclopedia's reliability as a whole.

In evaluating Wikipedia's foundational philosophy, Waters found it unsuitable for academic study. "It's really a product of the way the information is compiled," he said. "The articles can improve over time, but there's always an [emphasis on] change rather than something finalized."

The department's new policy on Wikipedia will be formally brought into full effect this coming spring. Professors will include the statement's language in course syllabi and in the instructions for senior theses. Some especially concerned teachers, such as Waters, pledged to drive home the message early and personally.

"To me, it was a sort of self-evident issue, and then I realized this wasn't the case," he said. "I'll be talking about it in the first week of classes so there isn't any doubt or confusion about the whole thing."

Though Waters's resolution did not outline punitive measures for violations of the new code, Morsman emphasized that students using Wikipedia did so at their own risk.

"If you find information on Wikipedia," she said, "and you use it on a test and the information is wrong, it's your problem, not ours."

Student reactions to the department's resolution were generally positive, though some seemed to consider the statement as redundant.

"Wikipedia's not a citable source," said Peter Prial '09. "I knew that in high school."

According to Eliza Murray '08, the burden rests with students themselves to learn the difference between credible and non-credible sources. "There are so many other, more legitimate sources to cite," she said. "Why would you cite Wikipedia?"

Morsman urged those alarmed with the move to regard the department's motion as a learning opportunity rather than simply more red tape.

"Go to the source," she said, referring to the list of suggested texts often found at the end of Wikipedia entries. "Take down that title and trot over to the library and check it out yourself, because we know there's a good vetting process that goes into producing a book."