Here are some of the things my students recently wrote about Wikipedia after being assigned to analyze the discussion page of an article of their choice. Many remarks were outright negative:


- This causes Wikipedia to turn from the original intention of being a free encyclopedia as it so claims into an online social network devoted to pseudo-scholarly bickering….In addition to its instability and often emotional rants, Wikipedia is simply in plain terms run by people who know almost as little about the subject as those searching for information.



- With this Wikipedia assignment I learned that it is similar to a gossip board, where people can come to get their thoughts on a particular topic off their chest.



- Both people in the discussion sound very intelligent in this argument, but I still see no evidence of citation. So far Wikipedia seems it is more like a sophisticated place to rant about past icons.



- It seems to be a debate on who’s right rather than actually getting anywhere with the article… Everyone in the discussion section seems to care more about whether they are right or not, than on whether the information is trustworthy or not.



- Much argument is dedicated to the issue of point of view, something a traditional encyclopedia would be devoid of.


That remark is telling. There were several students who commented similarly. There is a widespread belief that the Wikipedia program of producing articles with "No Point of View" is actually possible and is, in fact, what "real" encyclopedias achieve. There is, of course, no such thing as a "view from nowhere," a portrayal of history, or anything for that matter, without a perspective or point of view. Normal encyclopedias are written by people. And they cite sources which are also produced by people. All these people not only have all the normal attributes we attribute bias to (race, class, gender, education, nationality, etc.), even if they write "only facts" and no opinions, their very choice of which facts are important are expressions of opinion and perspective. It would be an interesting discussion to try to take a room full of scholars and "normal" people and try to arrive at a consensus for what constitutes reliable information. The scholars would have to try to convince the others of their criteria for designating content experts, believability, etc.

Back to the students...


I would not expect to find such a discussion in a traditional encyclopedia because encyclopedias are usually a primary source of information, not a secondary or even, as Wikipedia admits to being, a tertiary source.


This remark that encyclopedias represent a "primary source" is odd indeed. Encyclopedias are primary sources for the era in which they are written, but they are usually used as secondary sources, of course. I am not sure what a "tertiary" source is.

What this remark also reflects is that in a normal encyclopedia, we just don't see the arguments. We don't read the scholarly debates at conferences and then the "bickering" in the editorial rooms that might be behind the "facts" in the Collier's or Britannica article.

That is of course related to the idea that an encyclopedia can be neutral. I would encourage those interested to go to a controversial subject in Britannica or Collier's and then google the author of that article.

- The Wikipedia policies are many and very stringent. If someone tries to post a bit of sketchy information on the site, it will be checked and disposed of promptly. The discussion page of Wikipedia is where all the planning and corroboration comes together to make the article what it is. Aside from a few rookies, the majority of debating/discussing was of a very professional and scholarly caliber with just enough emotion thrown in to make it a little flavorful, but not enough to be biased.

There were several somewhat positive remarks like the one above. Most of the students complained that those involved in the debates were clearly not experts and were often not even identifiable.

The following kinds of remarks were meant as criticisms of Wikipedia, but I see them as compliments. They show an awareness by participants in the discussions that the project needs more substance than it has and that many involved actually see the point in having a stable, verifiable foundation behind an article:


- In the article discussion I studied, I observed people having more of a debate about what is an acceptable source rather than the veracity of the article at hand.



- The discussion was dominated by the haggling over reliable sources, which I found quite ironic, considering the website on which I was reading this debate.


Finally, one student reflected sentiment that I have posted on this blog before, why scholars aren't getting on board in large numbers:


- Perhaps the biggest failing of the Wikipedia project, is that despite the countless man hours put into different topic by arm chair fans and subject matter experts, there is little in the way of academic scholars posting to the website. Wikipedia just does not have the prestige of an academic journal, and no respectable scholar wants their work edited by a 14 year old know it all. Similarly it makes perfect sense that a serious researcher would not want to base their research on someone’s opinion rather than a fact that can be referenced.