think4yourself

politicalprof:

Well, that stuck a chord. Let me be clear:

1. I have no inherent problem with Wikipedia as a background source. It is a perfectly useful way to get an introduction to a topic. What it should not be, but all too often is, is a main source, for two reasons. First, most people lack the knowledge in the subject area to know whether the information Wikipedia is presenting is valid. Second, because of the way Wikipedia is structured, you cannot know whether the information you are relying on from it was hacked five minutes before you logged on. Wikipedia is getting better at vetting its posts, but remember the “Sarah Palin said Paul Revere’s ride was to warn the BRITISH” controversy earlier this summer? Palin supporters hacked the Wiki page for Paul Revere to reflect her claims, using her claims as the source. So long as this is possible, Wikipedia can be nothing more than a background source, not a core one.

2. Until you get lots of research papers turned in that are barely more than copy-and-pasted Wikipedia pages, don’t tell me about the nirvana of “access.” Could people cheat from encyclopedias? Of course they could…and did. But if it isn’t clear why electronic cutting and pasting is easier than cheating from the encyclopedia, then I don’t know how to explain it. Convenience is not the highest good in the world.

3. What I am really getting at is information literacy. Just because a link comes up it does not follow that the information on it is valid or should be trusted… Even if it backs up the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, we are not keeping pace on the question of information literacy—the ability to assess the core integrity of the information with which we are being presented. I am thrilled that lots of people lots of places can get access to information that they never could get access to before. I am in despair at how few of them seem able to distinguish good information from bad information, especially when the information they accept almost always confirms that which they already believe. 

We have made Wikipedia and Google faster than our culture has adapted to understanding their power and their flaws. That has consequences. We ought to acknowledge them and try to deal with them rather than imagine only their benefits.