The Fear
Wikipedia- A Source of Fear
I was always told never to refer to Wikipedia when writing in an academic context. I was told by teachers and educators to consider Wikipedia as a “bad” resource. I was told that the information found on Wikipedia was not to be trusted.
Teachers, guiders, academics, people who knew about information, the people I looked to for knowledge were strongly recommending that I should not step foot into the Wikipedia world. For this world was full of danger. The danger of Wikipedia was that misinformation was rife; unqualified, thus untrustworthy, people were the editors of information and the information itself was subject to constant updating-apparently a no-no at the time. Yes, here I was, happily willing to accept the negative propaganda being sold to me, adopting a belief that Wikipedia was an academic’s enemy.
However, half way into my university degree, which is a dual degree of Business and Creative Industries, I am now being told of the wonderful uses of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the potential to inform, the potential to build communities, the potential to play a vital role in the world today. From the Creative Industries side of my degree I am being told to embrace Wikipedia, from the Business side, even the slightest mention of Wikipedia is treated with despise.
The problem I have here is not of conflicting ideals in regards to one subject, as clearly such an issue can be applied to more then just Wikipedia. No, the problem is that the negative beliefs of Wikipedia were planted within me at an early stage of my education. Educators who did not like nor understand Wikipedia encouraged me to adopt their negative viewpoints. As a result I am now I am finding it difficult to overcome my negative predispositions and accepting Wikipedia to be this exceptional tool that my educators are now raving about is not easy.
Bruns explains why Wikipedia is a source of contempt amongs educatiors. He explains that academics do not know enough about Wikipedia and thus they fear it. This is a common theme within society today-if it is not understood then it should be rejected. Bruns believes that academics do not understand the potential of Wikipedia. It can be a resource far more relevant then printed and published encyclopaedias “Britannica tells you what dead white men agreed upon, Wikipedia tells you what live internet users are fighting over”. There are also arguments that academics fear Wikipedia because, just like produsage, it has the potential to flatten hierarchies, thus diminishing the power of a qualified educator. Bruns explains that banning the use of Wikipedia, as practiced in academic institutions and in my case within my own degree, is “medieval…the “problem” of Wikipedia is not going to be made to disappear by shunning it”.
Instead of pointing out the negatives of Wikipedia, educators need to in fact educate students on both the limitations and potential of any research tool.
Information on Wikipedia can be interactive, live and much more relevant then information offered in texts. From a marketing perspective, Wikipedia needs to be sold to academics. To increase awareness, increase the knowledge and emphasise the potential of Wikipedia will consequently facilitate the acceptance of Wikipedia as another effective research tool. Educators need to understand this potential. They need to overcome their fear by learning about this resource. Most importantly they need to stop passing their fear of Wikipedia onto innocent students who do not know any better.
Hi,
As a student undergoing the same dual degree, you really articulate the two major conflicting attitudes towards Wikipedia well. You put forward some necessary steps that marketing world must take, however I think that many academics will still continue to turn their nose at Wikipedia for years to come, just because of the inane fear surrounding the concepts of ‘open participation’ and ‘communal evaluation.’ Of course there are limitations to all academic resources, but I think that it is a great shame that Wikipedia is often overlooked as a reliable resource because of these two elements. Perhaps this is because Wikipedia lacks in individual rewards, maybe if Wikipedia introduced a system of recognition amongst participants, there would be less hostility towards it as an online source? You also mention the uncertainty surrounding produsage among many academics and I suppose, naturally, there are going to be users who aim to sabotage entries, for example the Heather Mills’ Wikipedia entry where in one subtle sentence she was referred to as a ‘witch’ – but this was removed almost immediately. This exemplifies a concept of citizen journalism, which is relevant to the model of Wikipedia, whereby the watchdogs are watching the watchdogs. Produsers alike are watching what comes through the gates and are either filling in the gaps or correcting and adding on their own interpretation or analysis. I agree with you, I think processes such as this need to be made more clear to academics in order to increase Wikipedia’s credibility.
Miki and Teddi,
Thanks for your input, I really appreciate your comments. It gives me an insight into what other people think about the subject. And I’m glad that other people do feel the same way in regards Wikipedia-that it’s acceptance on an academic scale needs to more widespread across our business faculties and of course, society as a whole.
Miki, I agree with you. I do think that it is unfortunate that academics will continue to disregard Wikipedia as a reliable resource. Though this may be the case, the suggestions you put forward are great. If the ‘rewards system’ you suggested were to be put into place, then I think academics would appreciate Wikipedia more as they would be given credit for the information they share and their qualifications would also be acknowledged. I think that this would address the insecurities they have in regards to the flattening of hierarchies. I defiantly think that if this ‘rewards system’ was marketed towards academics and society; it would encourage the adoption of Wikipedia within the academic world.
Teddi, I have share your opinion in that Wikipedia is still a developing phenomenon and Bruns is a few steps ahead of the rest of society when he explains the potentials of Wikipedia.
Thanks again for your input guys. It’s really great to talk about and share opinions on this subject.
I love this take on Wikipedia. It is definitely one that I myself share. As I am currently doing the same degree as you it really highlights the conflicting ideals all of us business and creative industry students share. Not only in our degree but in all avenues outside we are constantly being confronted with differing opinion in regards to basically everything. In regards to Wikipedia I agree with Bruns and believe that many educators and users alike have not embraced the full potential of Wikipedia and the open content creation model it encourages. I do still believe however that it is not at a stage currently where many would be able to do this. As I have discussed with many students in KCB201, Wikipedia is a developing concept and still contains many aspects that make it unfit for the use Bruns suggests. However with continually growth of other prominent web technologies I believe that it will eventually be at a stage for proper integration into many educational arenas.
I can understand the conflicts between the ideals in this particular unit and others within the university. Due to the nature of this particular unit, the majority of new media entities will probably be embraced. I find Bruns’ quote interesting in how he has completely opposed the notion of educators forcing students to shun Wikipedia and instead be taught its limitations. From my personal experience, a painful death is usually threatened towards users of Wikipedia as a source for their assessment. One notable occurrence of this was the lecturer’s heavy usage of quotes from Wikipedia in their teaching, stating “I’m doing this so you can’t”. Personally I believe that while students need a more diverse range of sources then those provided by Wikipedia, or Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia can be used to gain a basic understanding of a topic. While students are told to cite all their sources, students often do not include Wikipedia as a source, even if they have used it to develop their understanding of the topic. This is of course out of fear of statements made by the educators as to the consequences of using “unreliable” information from Wikipedia.