Wikipedia is Accurate
As a new instructional librarian who has taught basic english composition classes, I have been looking for fun new ways to engage students in the information literacy classroom. As you know, getting people excited about searching in databases and catalogs is no easy task–even if you’re gleefully leaping into the air and cracking jokes at the most opportune moments. It’s difficult–maybe close to highly improbable–to make a meaningful connection with every student in the classroom, establish rapport, and create an environment that allows students to engage with ideas rather than just recalling, broadening, narrowing, and refining information; that these goals are nearly unattainable is all the more reason to pursue them.
Yesterday, I was excited that one of the titles I ILLed had made it safe and sound to Hodges Library where I work as an Instructional Services Librarian. With eternal coffee cup, I briskly walked to the Circulation Desk to claim my treasure. In no time, I was returning to my cube with a shiny new copy of Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0 in hand. All of you know just how excited I really was at this moment (Plus, my last ILL experience was faster and cheaper than my last Amazon experience! How’s that for library advocacy?).If you’re ever anticipated the arrival of a new (or used) book, you know with what level(s) of excitement I approached the Circulation Desk.
But the point is this: the essays I read in this fantastic collection have inspired me to engage information literacy classes in new and exciting ways. For instance, Anne-Marie Deitering’s “Using Wikipedia to eavesdrop on the scholarly conversation,” enables me to look at Wikipedia from the perspective of–get this–a non-censoring, savvy, and conscious librarian. While other instructors cringe at the use of Wikipedia in academe, Deitering is pulling the rug out from under us, so to speak, and engaging Wikipedia as a tool of discovery and exploration. Let me pursue this a bit more because it’s so exciting….
There were a handful of statements in Deitering’s essay that really knocked me out (is that a strange or old-fashioned expression?) I will first list them here; but keep in mind, these are the statements that really jumped off the page for me:) This is just what I’ve gathered at this point:
1.) “‘Davidson and Crateau (1998) argue that most instruction librarians are not used to teaching an exploratory research process’” (88). Okay. Um, whoa? Brilliant! Do you see what I mean here? I was shocked when I read this statement. I guess I’ve developed an ability to be highly critical and reflective of very short bits of text since becoming an english major in college about 10 years ago (oh my god! 10 years!). But for me, this statement was a real eye~opener. And I think it’s very true that we often focus too closely on lower-level information retrieval concerns (and I’m calling them that because the implication in this bold statement suggests that we aren’t seeing or teaching the bigger picture–which is that research is situated in a discursive, non-linear knowledge creation process.) So than how do we teach research as a process of inquiry, exploration, and discovery? How might this realization change the goals that we outline in our information literacy “program” mission statements? Is this the missing link? Of course, we have to think about the balance between quality and quantity in the classroom: we provide services to students across all disciplines and are often forced to comply with standards that have made information literacy a “skill” to be acquired in a couple of 50-minute class periods. We have thousands of students to serve who are not gung-ho (wtf?) info.-obsessed freaks like we are. Wait….I take that back. T’was hasty of me. Pretty much everyone is an information obsessed freak. Who do I think I am?
But at the same time, there is always the bigger picture: that research is embedded in a messy, chaotic, and often very satisfying process of exploration and discovery; but you have to be willing to abandon some of your own predispositions in order to open up inquiry and engage new ideas.
2.) “I]n our first attempt to meet these [exploratory] objectives we sent the students to search engines and multidisciplinary databases, and asked them to browse titles. abstracts, and other metadata. This approach failed. [....] In short, most of our students could not use these tools to do an exploratory search. They did not have enough knowledge about their topics. or about scholarly processes, to find a rich browsing experience in their results lists.” (89) Whoa again! As I read this passage, I thought more and more about how I teach information literacy to undergraduates–most of which are first-year college students. Part of the problem is that students are often coming in for general orientations that have no real grounding in anything immediate or relevant in their lives, such as a project or research paper. Of course, it’s important for us to provide those orienting services though, and not to gripe too much (gripe? I never would say gripe in everyday conversation.) On the other hand, I see what Deitring is saying, and I’ve noticed these problems in the classes I’ve taught as well. The question then becomes: what tools do we employ to advocate exploration? What tools do we have that do enable this kind of “serendipitous” discovery? We can’t simply tell students to peruse, get lost, and run wild in the world of information. Telling them to familiarze with multiple viewpoints isn’t enough. Telling them to browse isn’t enough, either, especially if our ideas about browsing and the ways in which we browse have changed (whole other topic, eh?>Differing mental models and such). Since many students probably don’t know how to browse in databases, why would we make that a first entry point for them? Wouldn’t we start with something else that they already use to discover information in their everyday lives? Are these rhetorical questions sickening or enraging at all?
3.) “While ease of use was the first reason we decided to use Wikipedia as an information literacy tool, an additional benefit emerged very quickly. 3.1) One of he goals of the FYC programme is to introduce students to the processes and practice of academic writing. The goal of academic writing, in short, is knowledge creation” (91). I think it’s important that we don’t take for granted Wikipedia’s ease of use. Plus, students know it, they use it daily, and they’re not going to stop using it anytime soon just because of the near dogmatic notion that it’s undisbutably inaccurate. (Hell, I’m not going to stop using it either). Maybe here is where a larger conversation about mental models could ensue. The web 2.0 model that students are bringing into the library and that has changed the ways in which we think and construct knowledge should be present in information literacy sessions. Better yet, we show students how to use Wikipedia as a tool for exploration in order to do good research. They are confused, I think, when teachers and librarians tell them not to cite Wikipedia in their research papers because anyone can edit entries. I refuse to fear students into becoming Wikipedia-hating minions who can all recite why it’s so evil when used in academia. (At the same time I am trying to convey that academia is a different space that requires an often painful process of indoctrination and enculturation.)
What also captivated me about Deitering’s above statement, though, was that Wikipedia reveals the scholarly communication process whereas pre-wiki encyclopedias do not. (Sidenote: How cool would it be to publish yearly editions of Wikipedia in print? It would be a massive book….) Deitering points out the importance of creating an assignment that requires students to “eavesdrop” on the scholarly communication process by also looking at earlier versions of Wikipedia entries to see how different perspectives entered into the conversation. (I guess what this is actually referred to is called “versioning”. Who knew?) If we (make the time to) create thoughtful assignments that help students identify the processes that go into research and the production of knowledge, the Wikipedia exploration activity is one example of a relevant, fresh, and creative tool for discovery.
4.) Many faculty members and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are skeptical about Wikipedia’s value as a source of any kind, and choose to ban it entirely instead of helping students use it appropriately (my emphasis 92). When I was a composition teacher and not yet a librarian, I would just tell students not to cite Wikipedia in their papers as a legitimate source. (Of course we had the same-old conversation about how anyone could edit it, any old schmo with an internet connection, yada yada). Unfortunately, I had not given a whole lot of thought to the issue and ended up re-creating the wheel. Actually, I think I had heard the unholy name spoken so often in regard to poor research practice that I, like a demigogue, was pandering day in and day out to my colleagues’ and students’ fears and anxieties: that Wikipedia would be the chief proponent in the erosion of ethical and (cough: moral) writing and researching principles and practices. (Which, now, and needless to say, is total bullshit. Oops. I swore.) I can tell now, after giving this idea issue some thought, that banning Wikipedia as a legitimate source probably encourages rather than discourages its use in student writing. Part of my problem, I think, was that I did not see how Wikipedia really functioned–as a starting point–rather than a substantial or be-all research tool.
Perhaps we are missing an integral aspect of information literacy instruction, and perhaps Wikipedia can be a great way to start teaching research as a process rather than as a technique. I know I’m making some big leaps here, but I’ll fill in the gaps a little bit later. I know that when I’m teaching first-year information literacy classes, there seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle–the part where students have first explored issues and topics that interest them. I wonder if we’re really doing what we can to encourage discovery and wonderment prior to equipping them with the tools to do Boolean and truncated searching. I know that we can not reach everyone like we want to, but maybe part of an information literacy session (if not the whole thing) should focus on guided exploration activities using Wikipedia to get the ball rolling. All students have something that really excites them, whether that’s rugby, cat dieases, chainmail (not the mail you’re supposed to forward or endure bad luck for 10 years), or latino mural art.
I tend to be overzealous….
5.) “The biggest challenge, of course, is making the assignment meaningful and useful for as many students as possible” (92). Indeed! My own (obvious?) unbridled positivism, once it meets face to face with the students it’s supposed to inspire, will need to be reshaped and redirected in the classroom depending upon the needs of the class…and if that class is falling asleep or staring blankly in my direction. Maybe a better way to do an activity using Wikipedia (since students already use it constantly on their own) would be to do it with the librarian. Part of what makes such an assignment really inspiring is that the librarian inserts him or herself into the research process as a go-between, helping students make connections between the tools of everyday use and those found in the library. It’s probably overly ambitious, but partnering with core teaching faculty (an english department) to get teachers and librarians on board with a sustained discovery session would be a great way for librarians (especially) to drive and shape the information literacy programs. Anne-Marie: my hat is off to you for seeing how Wikipedia can become a powerful tool to inspire wonderment and introduce students to scholarship and research.
Works Cited:
Anne-Marie Deitering. “Using Wikipedia to eavesdrop on the scholarly conversation.” Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0. Godwin, Peter and Jo Parker. Facet Publicshing: London, 2008.
