The Real Wikipedia

We all remember it. The repetitive drone of every elementary and middle school teacher’s voice reverberating through our skulls while we hastily look for any source that seems legitimate.

“Don’t use Wikipedia as a source!”

I’m sure by now this phrase is so engrained in us that a small etching of it can be found in our brain matter. Of course, as we’ve gotten older, we have all learned to use Wikipedia, though we stick to the bottom of the page where the reference list is. That’s where we find the good stuff. I certainly have felt the rush of academic rebellion while scraping as many sources on a topic as I can through the reference list. Even then, as my finger depresses the paddle on the mouse to submit my bibliography, I feel the collective death stare of prior teachers radiating on my neck.

Once again, we all find ourselves in another midterm period. Waves of assignments with source requirements stand before us, arms at the ready, beckoning us to the battlefield of word processors. Though the outlook may seem grim, we have heroes among us: Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg. In their hands is a copy of Verified, a book that glows with fierce radiance that forces the knees of the awaiting bibliography to buckle in fear.

“Wait, what? You mean we can’t…? Oh. Shit. Well, I’ll wing it”

Our heroes have informed me that, while we are not about be set free to the holy land of citing Wikipedia like there’s no tomorrow, we should still use it. In fact, we should use it as worthy tool alongside other research.

Although Verified doesn’t quite advocate for using Wikipedia as a direct source of information, it’s certainly useful in multiple areas of researching things. This is still quite a freeing perspective considering the multi-year abstinence campaign we were all subject to in our childhood. We can all appreciate the tips that Verified provides in how we go about using Wikipedia: jumpstarting research, getting a feel for an academic conversation, quick source checking, and fast claim checking. However, the most helpful aspect of chapter 6 is the justification as to why Wikipedia can be trusted at all.

The biggest concerns about Wikipedia are directly addressed here. This chapter exposes the lacking context surrounding the loud protesting wails from middle school teachers all over the country. In particular, the implication that information isn’t regulated or verified in any way isn’t true (at least, it isn’t true anymore). Learning about the systems in place to keep Wikipedia as correct as possible such as automated bots, manual moderation, and protected pages gives us a whole lot of relief since the skepticism bred into us revolves around a lack of standards. Caulfield and Wineburg also take the time to explain that Wikipedia doesn’t handle original research. Instead, it collects information from other sources. In other words, it’s a tertiary source.

Having a perspective that informs us as to how Wikipedia can be helpful and why we can have a healthy trust in it is quite freeing. It takes a website that has been treated like an academic boogeyman hellbent on misleading students into writing terrible work and situates it in a realistic place for studying and researching. Perhaps engaging with the opportunity that Wikipedia affords could have been a means of teaching students how to engage with tertiary sources in general. Instead, we were stripped of a valuable resource. Hopefully, grade school has changed its mind on Wikipedia. If it hasn’t yet seen the light, then we’ll just have to send our heroes their way when we’re done with them.