Wiki What?

Wikipedia is one of my favorite websites. Every once in a while, something pops into my head that I would really like to know more about. Like Lady GaGa or General George S. Patton. I would just really like to know more about what made that person, idea, place, or thing the way it is. One of the most interesting things was reading about Wikipedia’s own policies of page editing, and that came about when I was reading a little about the Church of Scientology. They have banned certain IP addresses from editing the pages on the Church of Scientology, IP addresses from both pro and con viewpoints.

Now it isn’t where I start out when I am researching something. My homepage is Google, and when I want to look something up, I usually type in a general idea of what I am looking for and search it. Quite often, an article from Wikipedia relative to the topic is at or near the top of the search results. If the brief descriptions brought forth by the search results don’t seem relevant or intriguing I will look at the Wikipedia entry. More often than not, it seems to carry less bias than other websites on certain topics, for example, the Church of Scientology. For that reason, I tend to trust the information a bit more on Wikipedia.

Since I will be teaching mathematics, I don’t foresee myself running into many situations where my students will have to rely on doing any research for any projects or assignments that may include visiting Wikipedia. If there is a reason for research, then I would probably trust Wikipedia, depending on the subject. I enjoy math because I perceive it as a black or white subject. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn’t. There is no real gray area in the previous equation that any anonymously edited page on Wikipedia might sway my students to believe differently. If I were a social studies, science, or English teacher, I may not completely trust Wikipedia, again, depending on the subject. The article, “Wikipedia: Ban It or Boost It?” brought up a scary point that I had not really considered. That “entries are written—by anyone, at any time, on nearly any topic. No editors or editorial process.” I knew that, but seeing it in print made me realize that even just enthusiastic people could mislead others with the click of a button.

When it comes to my students using Wikipedia, again I have no real problem with it. I still see it as a useful research tool. But I would require that any student who uses Wikipedia as a reference for a project must use another credible reference for approximately the same information. In addition, I would require that my students reference the name of the web page used for information and provide the URL. One of the most frustrating things for me is seeing a reference to information that is only a main website. I feel anyone should be a little more transparent as to where they got the information they are presenting.