How College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Essay

Why then atomic number 18 academicians so wary closely the use of Wikipedia within universities? There are a number of think reasons. Before outlining them we should acknowledge that there may be differences according to academic discipline in attitudes towards Wikipedia. Speaking to academics from the rude(a) and medical sciences over the perish year, it seems that those subjects are less interested with issues of originality of source than the arts and social sciences.It overly may be pic and this is genuine speculation pic that academics in the English utter founding, where most of the academic controversy over Wikipedia use has been, are to a greater extent sensitive to the source than in other parts of the world. These qualifications aside, there are definite reasons why Wikipedia use is, at the very least, contentious in universities. First, it is the product of anonymous individuals rather than known authorities, Wales is quite explicit on thisOne of the fastest thin gs were beginning to lose is the view of the world that there are a handful of thoughtful, intelligent people that should be broadcasting their views to every whizz. And then the public is some sort of crazed rabble, considerably swayed by rhetoric and so forth. Now we get to have a more nuanced understanding. Wikipedia is not necessarily anti-academic but it is anti-elitist as evidenced by the short shrift given to eminent academics in debates when they expected deference (see dainty 2007, 43pic4).Second, the non-proprietary nature of Wikipedia cuts against academic culture which valorises the rights of the author and publisher. Third, the anonymity of Wikipedia articles is alien to the pile up of the named writer of the journal article or book. Fourth, the collaborative process challenges the average of individual creation, prevalent in the arts and social sciences. Fifth, as intimated, Wikipedia departs from the stock mode of vetting by peer review. It is not true that artic les are not reviewed. On the contrary, they are scrutinised by far more editors than for any journal.However, as the contributor is generally not an academic expert, so the reviewer is not generally an academic expert. So Wikipedia rejects academic custom in the digest of knowledge. In addition, there are a number of what might be termed learning and teaching issues pertaining to its use within universities. First, there is the issue of the true statement of Teaching in Higher Education 651 Downloaded by University of Glasgow at 0527 12 December 2012 Wikipedia entries, something that relates to the lack of formal expertise and peer review.Reviews of the accuracy of Wikipedia entries by formal expert(s) have actually been generally positive (for natural sciences see Giles 2005 American history Meier 2008). Despite this, the suspicion still surrounds Wikipedia that it cannot be trusted. OSullivans (2009, 119) assertion that most people probably have an ambivalent attitude toward Wik ipedia, thankful for its existence, using it frequently, but with reservations about its numerate reliability seems valid. Some academics would no doubt sympathise with the sardonic note of comedian Frankie Boyle that Wikipedia entries should begin with I reckon.Second, some have questioned whether Wikipedias determination for studied neutrality is convincing. OSullivan (2010) complains that as Wikipedia only displays one voice, diversity is not incorporated and therefore articles become bland. Waless response is unapologetic Guilty as charged, were an encyclopedia (in Read 2006). non that his approach to knowledge is without theory, it derives rather from his admiration for the convoluted objectivist philosophy of Indo-European Rand, the Russian e?migre? philosopher and novelist (Younkins 2007).A third learning and teaching concern is that, regardless of the reliability of Wikipedia, it is in itself an illegitimate form of research. Here the cerebration would be that a student who culls Wikipedia for assignments does not understand scholarship. This consists of the consideration of conglomerate sources a judicious sifting and ordering of knowledge, rather than lifting bite size chunks of text that purport to capture a subject.On this Wales concurs, telling students For immortal sake, youre in college dont cite the encyclopedia (in raw 2006). Some universities in the US have banned Wikipedia use, whilst others recommend a more discriminating approach (Jaschik 2007 Murley 2008). The latter is what Wales and others within Wikipedia advise it should be used only as a starting place in academic research, a references source and a revision aid. What, however, is the evidence on Wikipedia use by students and academics at universities?