Volume 8, Issue 1, 2014

[ARTICLE]

WIKIPEDIA AND

A student project

Greg Barnhisel Duquesne University

Marcia Rapchak Duquesne University

ABSTRACT

Students in a senior English class examined the question of whether the ‘wisdom of experts’ or ‘the wisdom of crowds’ is more reliable and useful in a writing course by engaging in a parallel project. Each student either created a new entry or made significant changes to an existing Wikipedia entry, tracked changes to their contributions, and then wrote a paper and gave a presentation reflecting on what they learned; simultaneously, the class as a whole collaborated on a Wikipedia entry about a local landmark’s . Background readings familiarizing students with Wikipedia's procedures, as well as critical and philosophical interpretations of Wikipedia's significance, provided students perspective on Wikipedia’s utility. While the instructor expected students to enter with an uncritical understanding of Wikipedia's reliability and then to see Wikipedia's fundamental untrustworthiness, students’ work demonstrated that they entered the class skeptical about Wikipedia and that their projects showed them that Wikipedia was mostly reliable and useful. In this experiment, students showed that they were at an intermediate stage of “personal epistemology” and still had not achieved the level of reflective judgment sought by the school’s -literacy competency goals.

145 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014

INTRODUCTION advanced undergraduate students to identify expert information as superior in most Encouraging students to evaluate cases. Two possible explanations arise. The information sources not only for their students may still be at an intermediate content but also for the context in and for stage of what researchers call “personal which they are created (author, purpose, epistemology” (Swanson, 2006) and thus audience, etc.) requires advanced critical the information-literacy curriculum of the thinking skills that can only be mastered university and the English Department with time and practice. At Duquesne should be assessed and improved. University, a senior-level writing course Alternately, the researchers themselves, taught by the first author, a tenured faculty both steeped in an academic epistemology member in the English Department, that values credentialed expertise above all, attempted to facilitate fail to see that Wikipedia’s reliance such evaluation skills FOR GOD'S SAKE, YOU'RE IN through a project in on the “wisdom of which students COLLEGE; DON'T CITE THE crowds” is indeed created or modified a ENCYCLOPEDIA. superior in many Wikipedia entry and respects and that tracked the students appreciate modifications made , WIKIPEDIA that contingency and by others to the entry, contextuality better while they also than their instructors. explored the concept of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ in contrast to the ‘wisdom of LITERATURE REVIEW experts’ through the course readings and discussions. The goal of this assignment For many instructors, particularly was for students to see that, given the crowd composition instructors, students' use of -sourced and biased information provided Wikipedia in class assignments and research for mass consumption in Wikipedia, expert- papers shows a lack of research skills and created materials would be superior to use little dedication to a project. Both for research purposes. However, in student institutions and instructors have banned the writings, reflections, and interviews about use of Wikipedia in college work (Chen, the course designed and conducted by the 2010; Jaschik, 2007; Waters, 2007). first author and the second author (a Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales agrees university librarian specializing in that students should not use his site for information literacy), students indicated that college-level work, stating that when the ease with which Wikipedia satisfices students complain about receiving poor their information needs and their own new grades for citing (sometimes incorrect) understanding of the editing and crowd information from Wikipedia, he thinks, “For management of the site made them feel God’s sake, you're in college; don't cite the more confident about the usefulness of encyclopedia” (as cited in Young, 2006). Wikipedia. The students’ responses, particularly their comfort with the Faculty and librarians alike often bemoan contingent of Wikipedia and their the use of Wikipedia in papers, wishing that willingness to dismiss “expert” information, students would use library resources instead. surprised the researchers who expected Online resources are often blamed for 146 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 increases in student plagiarism (Parker, Head and Eisenberg (2010) found in their Lenhart, & Moore, 2011) and a White Paper study of over 2,300 undergraduates: “Over from Turnitin shows that Wikipedia is the half of the survey respondents (52 percent) number one site with “matched content,” were frequent Wikipedia users - even if an which are instances of possible plagiarism instructor advised against it.” Students will or direct quoting on student papers in higher visit Wikipedia regardless of bans from education. Regardless of whether these instructors, and after finding Wikipedia a appearances are plagiarism or not, such boon in college, 69% of adults with a frequent use of Wikipedia in writing college degree turn to the source for assignments indicates, at best, information which is more than those who unsophisticated research practices. This do not have a college degree (Zickuhr & uncritical reliance on the site has created the Rainie, 2011). However, Head and edict from many instructors that Wikipedia Eisenberg found that most students in the may not be used in their course, and like an survey said that they used Wikipedia either article in the National Post states, many at the “very beginning” (40%) or “near the students know that “one of the biggest no- beginning” (30%), which means that many no’s” is using Wikipedia as a source in a students understand that Wikipedia does not paper (Boesveld, 2011). provide comprehensive information on a topic. Over 80% of respondents claimed that Many people, not just academics, believe they used Wikipedia to find background that Wikipedia lacks credibility and information and five other resources, authority. Several news and stories including course readings and scholarly have appeared in the last ten years about research databases, were used more errors in Wikipedia (see Fisher, 2005; frequently than the collaborative resource Pershing, 2009; Seelye, 2005). On Monday for finding background information (Head July 31, 2006, on The Colbert Report (a TV & Eisenberg, 2010). What librarians and show parodying conservative pundits), host instructors need to do is to show them how coined the term “wikiality,” correctly to evaluate, analyze, use, and which he defined as a reality that exists communicate with this tool. By integrating through applying “ to Wikipedia into course projects and knowledge” and encouraged his users to activities, instructors can show students the tamper with a Wikipedia entry. The same benefits and limitations of the resource. year, The Onion, a satirical news source, released a story with the headline Several instructors recognize the value of “Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of Wikipedia in instruction beyond simple Independence,” full of laughably false evaluation of entries. By asking students to information supposedly gleaned from the create entries, instructors empower students site. Aside from the accusations of and show the value of scholarly inaccuracy, which may be overstated, a New communication. Students contribute to a York Times article notes that entries are popular pool of information and are writing frequently poorly written and biased for an “actual” audience rather than “just the (Levine, 2006). professor,” according to writing instructors (Cummings, 2008; Tardy, 2010). In some So are faculty members improving their courses, not only do students write entries, students' writing by banning the use of but they find poor entries to revise and add Wikipedia? This is unlikely given what to them substantially while using other

147 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 outside resources for support (Cummings, Many scholars have examined the deeper 2008; Pollard, 2008). Students may also be question of how undergraduates access, asked to justify and discuss their edits with assess, and use information in research other Wikipedia users (Cummings, 2008; projects. Particularly useful for this analysis Pollard, 2008). According to Jim Purdy have been discussions of the process of (2009), “Wikipedia allows for revision “developing reflective judgment” in the based on idea development rather than only influential formulation of King and grammatical correctness, textual production Kitchener (1994). Influenced by King and that involves collaborative participation Kitchener’s idea that undergraduates go rather than isolationist thinking, and through “stages” of developing “reflective research based on production rather than judgment” about information, Whitmire mere critique” (W365). This assists in (2003) and Swanson (2006) both argue that student comprehension of the purpose of undergraduates begin with an “absolute” revision and the effort that must be model of knowledge in which “knowledge dedicated to effective revisions. The use of is certain or absolute,” pass through a Wikipedia in higher education assignments transitional period in which they learn that has become so popular that there is a knowledge can be partially uncertain and Wikipedia entry listing various Wikipedia then another, relativistic period in which projects. they conclude that “everyone has their own beliefs” Both researchers agree that in the Wikipedia's limitations have been discussed end, students learn that knowledge is exhaustively, yet Wikipedia continues to see contextual and that they must judge the more and more use (Zickuhr & Rainie, validity of evidence or information by 2011). Showing students how information is taking its context into consideration. contributed, revised, and argued about on Wikipedia allows them to see the benefits THE CLASS and drawbacks of the “wisdom of crowds” firsthand and involving them in the process The assignment was the culminating project through a class assignment brings them of the senior-level “Ethics, Culture, and closer to understanding the importance of Writing” class, one of several capstone understanding audience and purpose to classes for English majors offered each create a message. However, any semester, taught by the first author of this composition instructor who includes a article. In these “Senior Seminar” capstones, Wikipedia project should be forewarned that students are expected to demonstrate students, who have most likely been advised baccalaureate-level information literacy and against using Wikipedia in the past, may communication skills. This particular focus much more on its benefits than course, aimed primarily at those students in limitations after the project; this was the the “Writing” track of the major, focused on experience in the “Ethics, Culture and the ethics of public writing. Key issues Writing” course, described in the following included: sections. And of course, collaborative, constantly evolving “” writing has been  What ethical responsibilities does a employed in writing classes for over fifteen writer have to his/her readers? years (Hunter, 2011; Loudermilk-Garza &  What ethical responsibilities does a Hern, 2005; Lundin, 2008;). writer have to his/her subject, particularly if that subject is other 148 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014

people? author-function does not reside in the  What expectations do readers individual person writing. The three have of writers in terms of ethnographies analyze deeply their writers’ honesty? own dual personae of credentialed scholarly  What is the nature of the terms author and individual human being who “author” and “authenticity”? worries about the ethics of what he/she is  Which is more reliable, the doing in the process of generating wisdom of experts, or the wisdom scholarship. Venkatesh and Bourgois watch of crowds? and in some cases take part in low-level drug dealing and street violence, and Nathan The class' first unit examined what degree misrepresents herself to the students she of honesty and authenticity American lives with in a university dormitory. The audiences expect from writers in the public instructor wanted the students to think and sphere. On the syllabus were the cases of A write about the nature of the relationship of Million Little Pieces’ author James Frey; an individual, human “author” to plagiarist Jayson Blair; information contained in a scholarly study New Republic fabricator Stephen Glass; and and to see that however much we may want Nobel laureate and author Rigoberta to approach scholarship as objective and Menchu. The class read Roland Barthes' impersonal, it is created and shaped by “From Work to Text” and Michel Foucault's human beings with biases, personal “What Is an Author?” to provide a histories, and ethical obligations to their theoretical model that questions the subjects and readers. Moreover, he sought to naturalness of our ideas of authorship. A have the students bring this to bear upon second unit examined the responsibility of their analysis of Wikipedia, information scholarly authors (particularly generated by large groups of anonymous ethnographers) to their subjects in three individuals. If an individual author brings immersion studies: Sudhir Venkatesh's bias and slant, he wanted his students to ask Gang Leader for a Day and Philippe the question ”Would collectively authored Bourgois' In Search of Respect (both about material avoid that problem?” the urban criminal underworld) and Rebekah Nathan's My Freshman Year THE ASSIGNMENT (about a professor who goes “undercover” as a first-year student at her large state The Wikipedia assignment was designed as university). a true “capstone” that would require students to do research in scholarly and Taken as a whole, the readings in the first general-interest sources, generate an and second unit and the writing assignments informed response to a broad question, accompanying them asked students to produce a variety of writing projects reflect on the relationship of an “author,” conveying their response, and present their particularly a scholarly author, to the findings in diverse ways. The basic information he or she provides. The French assignment had three components: 1) a new theorists Barthes and Foucault argue that Wikipedia entry authored by the student or one must detach the person writing from the significant alterations/additions to an information included in the “text,” with existing site; 2) an academic paper in which Foucault arguing that the “author-function” students reported on the process of editing is what gives a text “authority,” and this and then watching the subsequent changes 149 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 to their chosen entry, and used this evidence students addressed these questions. Then, to speculate on whether the ‘wisdom of for the purposes of this case study, the crowds’ or the ‘wisdom of experts’ was investigators asked students to return to superior; 3) a five-minute PowerPoint these questions, two and a half years later, presentation in which they described their and reflect on how what they learned in that findings and conclusions to the class. project had affected their use of Wikipedia in their post-college lives. Evaluation was based on the following factors (this is taken from the assignment THE PROJECT prompt): During the weeks that the students worked  the quality and significance of on their individual Wikipedia projects, the the additions you make, and how class and instructor also collaboratively well they demonstrate your authored a brand-new Wikipedia entry and understanding of the purpose of submitted it for publication. They chose a an encyclopedia topic, used Wikipedia's templates and  the seriousness with which you entries to determine what sections would take the project, including need to go in the entry, divided up the task documenting any claims of fact of researching the topic and finding reliable that make it onto the page sources to cite in the entry, and eventually  your understanding of the issues wrote the entry collectively. surrounding Wikipedia and user- generated content The entry was on a historic building near  the depth of thought and breadth Duquesne University called the “Paramount of scope of the final paper Film Exchange,” a decision about whose  that your final paper has a central demolition was then before Pittsburgh City argument and draws upon your Council. Ultimately, the building was own experiences and the ideas of landmarked and saved from demolition. The other writers for evidence and class composed its entry collaboratively, but context the instructor ultimately shaped the article according to Wikipedia's specifications and The overarching goal of the Wikipedia then, over the course of several days, project in all of its various components was repeatedly returned to the article to edit and for students to evaluate the information proofread it. The last edit the instructor available through Wikipedia critically by made to the article was in January 2010 to applying their knowledge—primary and note the Council's decision to landmark the secondary—of how the information on building. Over the subsequent two year Wikipedia is generated, edited, and period several other Wikipedia contributors presented to the public. Students would then have added details to the article, catalogued apply this practical knowledge to a it better within Wikipedia's indexing theoretical consideration of an system, and further edited the page. The epistemological question: whether experts revision’s history page shows these or crowds ultimately produce “better” additions and edits. information (“better” meaning not just more accurate, but also more appropriate for the Creating an entry as a class—and spending uses of a specific audience). In their papers, in-class time on the project when a 150 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 computer classroom was available—served supplemental files. The students are referred a practical pedagogical purpose: this way to as Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, students all knew how to create a Wikipedia Student 4, and Student 5 in the text. account, start a new entry, learn the very basic HTML tags and the conventions of the INSTRUCTOR PRECONCEPTIONS site. The collaborative “authorship” of the AND STUDENT RESPONSES site, moreover, served as fodder for discussions about the nature of authorship The instructor came into this class, and into (meshing nicely with the Foucault reading) the Wikipedia project in particular, with a and as an object lesson about how ‘the very strong preconception (derived both wisdom of crowds’ looked in operation, as from cultural stereotyping and from many neither the students nor the instructor were years of teaching freshman writing) that experts in urban preservation or college students credulously believe neighborhood history. Does it matter, the everything they read on Wikipedia and class wondered, whether a group of either do not or cannot differentiate its laypeople with no credentials in any validity as a source from the validity or relevant field were producing the most credibility of a scholarly source. widely disseminated and long-lasting account of this local political controversy? This preconception determined the approach What key aspects of this story were we to teaching the material in class. Assuming missing because of our lack of training or correctly that students were unfamiliar with knowledge? how Wikipedia pages were created and edited, the instructor assigned students to METHODOLOGY read several articles on the early (including excerpts from Andrew For the purposes of this study, the Lih's ) and the investigators initially applied for IRB “nuts and bolts” of creating and editing approval and received that approval in Wikipedia pages (Lih ,2009). Perhaps the Spring 2012. The investigators then most interesting of these articles was attempted to contact all members of the Katherine Mangu-Ward's (2007) piece from ENG 450W class (all of whom graduated in the libertarian magazine Reason, in which Spring 2010). Five of the nine students who she highlights Wikipedia founder Jimmy completed the class responded and agreed to Wales' libertarian philosophy and how take part in the study. Two of these were Wikipedia is itself an appealing model of also able to take part in a filmed interview; how the (Wikipedia contributors and the rest could only participate by filling out volunteer editors) can satisfy the needs of a survey. All participants signed a consent the people (web surfers looking for form and the two students who agreed to be information) and that the value of this filmed came in on separate days to answer product (information) is best determined by questions on camera. The remaining three the marketplace (Mangu-Ward, 2007). students sent their answers to the study While her argument is flawed, it did provide questions via email. students with a model of someone doing genuine cultural-studies work on Wikipedia, All students who consented to take part in even if the political stance of the cultural- the study consented to make their final studies work was very different than that of papers available; they are included as the founders of cultural studies, but not from 151 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 those of the founders of Wikipedia. off with that idea and used his final project to create a Wikipedia page that would Pressed on how Wikipedia colors their promote his brother's medical-device understanding of the question of the wisdom business.) of crowds, the class as a whole quickly concluded that pages were much more likely What students wrote in their papers to be accurate and useful if they were illustrates this equivocal, pragmatic popular or consulted often. Conversely, they understanding of Wikipedia. Student 1— quickly saw that rarely viewed pages could whose contribution was a new article on carry false or incomplete information for Maryland's Bull Run Invitational Cross months. Wikipedia, they decided, was much Country Race—wrote that: more useful for information about “hot topics” or perennial sources of interest, I can support neither the notion of whereas one would be much better served superiority in “the wisdom of the looking for information on arcane or crowds” or the “expert.” I would obscure topics in publications aimed at argue that both are equally capable specialists and authored by experts in those of fault…. My own Wikipedia fields. This conclusion showed a high article, “The Bull Run Invitational “epistemological development level” Cross Country Race” further proves (Whitmire, 2003) in that students identified that in Wikipedia the wisdom of the that knowledge is contextual. crowds stand equal with the wisdom of the expert.

STUDENTS' ASSESSMENT OF Student 4 focused his Wikipedia experiment even more: WIKIPEDIA IN THEIR PAPERS

In their final papers, students tended to I have created an entry with a concentrate less on the philosophical issues specific commercial agenda which of the free market or of experts versus the directly challenges the functionality crowd than on more pragmatic concerns. of Wikipedia's anarchic approach to “What are Wikipedia pages good for?” they knowledge. My article seeks to asked and answered. Pointing out that promote a specific company, Accord Wikipedia pages are important marketing Curtains, and it is purposefully and promotional tools for companies, manipulative. Still, the greater organizations, politicians, and artists, and question remains, will my discretely that users should keep this in mind when non-NPOV (neutral point of view) using these pages, in one class period the article actually persuade anyone? instructor inserted a defamatory falsehood Furthermore, just because my biased into the page of Luke Ravenstahl, the mayor article has stayed in the Wikipedia of Pittsburgh at the time, and asked students database for about a month, does it to see how long it took the falsehood to amount to any substantial argument disappear. Within five minutes, it was gone. against the viability of the wisdom of This suggests, the instructor pointed out, crowds? that policing one's own Wikipedia page has become a priority for those who are in the Student 2 also created a new entry on the business of promotion. (One student took 1871 Supreme Court decision Collector v. 152 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014

Day. While Student 1 and Student 4 an immense amount of work on a previously quoted created entries on topics particular subject? that were arguably of little public interest, Student 2's entry is of much more potential Student 5 tested the use to a broader audience. (Interestingly, with a more mischievous approach; he though, although Wikipedia doesn't provide inserted lies and invective into a long entry a count of hits to help judge the popularity for the wildly popular football simulation of an entry, Student 2's entry has received a Madden 10: similar number of edits in the last two and a half years as have Student 4 and Student Often when playing and making a 1's.) In her paper, Student 2 directly crucial mistake, I would be greeted addressed the nature of expertise and the by in game commenter Cris seeming arbitrariness of how the Collinsworth's voice telling me how qualification “expert” is bestowed upon awful a decision my interception people: was. I finally enacted revenge on him by posting vicious hearsays on Experts are no longer the sole Wikipedia, as I thought it would be providers of information, but instead interesting to talk about in the a twenty-two year old from history of the page. However, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, can pose lies I put up stuck... Other members as an expert on a constitutional of the Wiki community who posted case with the right materials. This material to the page did nothing to made me question: What qualifies counteract my lying. No someone to be an expert? Do a administrator swooped in to remove couple of more years of education it; it just stuck. and a Ph.D. really make someone more qualified than the average Student 5 was surprised at how long it took person? What if a person reads for other users to notice his “lies,” given the multiple books on a subject? Or what popularity of the game. if another person has experienced something so many times that it I posted most of the actual text becomes a second nature to him or between November 30th and her? Shouldn't that qualify the person December 2nd, with most of the lies as an expert? I think so. Especially if coming at the end of my foray into the materials needed to write an Wikipedia editing. These lies were article are cited, it shows that the not taken down until the ninth of person creating it has a solid idea of December…. In fact, users actually the subject matter. The elitist should cleaned up the text I had produced not be so quick to judge those of us two days before the lies were taken who [are] unable to achieve “expert down by two different sources. status” according to their standards. From my experience alone, I feel STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE that I have beome [sic] an expert on PROJECT my topic because of all the work I

have put into it. After all, isn't that Five students provided written or in-person what it takes to become an expert— filmed responses to a set of questions the 153 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 two researchers generated. Two and a half “Troy Polamalu has the sexiest hair years after completing the class, when asked in the NFL.” Not even 5 seconds to reflect on what they learned about later, I had a message from a Wikipedia through this assignment, students Wikipedia policeman informing me barely altered their original summative about the repercussions of doing judgments that had so completely countered such a thing to a Wikipage...It really the instructor’s preconceptions. Perhaps opened my eyes as to how incredible because of a required one-credit information and powerful the internet is to -literacy course they took as first-year society. students, the students who responded to the questionnaire for this study reported that Student 3 in the class reports much the same they came into the class convinced that impressions, noting that her impression of Wikipedia was an unreliable source but that Wikipedia prior to this class was “not learning about the creation and community positive” because “its information editing of Wikipedia pages made the site verification parameters were not incredibly more reliable to them. strict.” But like Student 2, her opinion changed: Student 4 and Student 5, who agreed to be interviewed on camera for this project, During class, I answered the address this question directly in the question, “What is more reliable, the interviews. Three other students who could wisdom of experts, or the wisdom of not be present for an on-camera interview crowds?” by arguing that crowd agreed. Student 2 notes that before the class: contribution, like that on Wikipedia, far surpasses the reliability of I knew that Wikipedia was a website experts. My work with the that could tell you about anything Wikipedia page helped me answer and everything; however, I also that question because I found that a believed (and was told by my diversity of opinion, independence in teachers) that Wikipedia was not a thought, decentralization of reliable source. I would use it for a knowledge, and aggregation that random question that I would have separate wise contributions from throughout the day to store in my irrational ones truly inform the “useless facts file,” but I would “truth” that we know and accept, as never use it to write a paper. opposed to one “fact-checked expert” who may report incorrect The class, however, changed her mind: information to the masses. (How often are mainstream media reports I learned that the power of the wrong?) masses is a real thing. I remember [the professor] told us to play around Student 1 came to much the same with the website and “get to know conclusion: it.” I did just that. I remember one Thursday night, while watching the Before [this] class, I knew little Steelers’ game, I deleted all of the about the workings of Wikipedia text under Troy Polamalu's [and] I never used it for academic “Professional Career” and just wrote, research as I had long been told by

154 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014

teachers and professors that the corresponding Wikipedia entry is fine, Wikipedia was not a proper research these students sanguinely suggest. tool. [In the course of the class] I think I became more open to What comes out forcefully in this study, Wikipedia... While Wikipedia lacks finally, is that the university has the traditional safeguards that successfully helped its students move past guarantee reliability in other the most preliminary levels of personal resources, it is still capable of epistemology (received facts are producing expert level articles. unquestioned), past the transitional relativistic stage (everything is just an And like the others, Student 1 exhibits a opinion; nothing is a fact) and into the fundamentally pragmatic approach to the “contextual” final stage. Where the collection and use of information: curriculum has failed is in providing students with a full understanding of the Both sources [crowds and experts] categorical difference between knowledge have different merits... My life generated by experts and certified as valid experience since class pulls me in through the customary procedures of peer favor of the . In review, expert editing, and such, and my recent studies, I have found that I knowledge generated by well-informed can learn much more from a group of laypeople. They don’t, in short, truly my peers than from a single expert. understand the “context” in which scholarly information is generated, and thus they Striking in many of these students’ cannot be said to be making fully informed responses is their certainty that laypeople information-seeking judgments. such as themselves can generate information that is just as valid and useful as that which CONCLUSION scholars or credentialed experts might provide. Why does one need a Ph.D. to talk The instructor came into the unit assuming about the Bull Run Invitational Cross- that he would be ushering students into an Country Meet or Madden 17? In fact, might epiphany: Wikipedia, a source they loved scholarly credentials undermine one’s and relied upon and rarely questioned, was ability to provide useful information to a actually rife with junk information because general audience? The rapidity with which anyone—even they—could change anything intentionally inserted errors were corrected at will, and the only mechanism that confirmed to students that Wikipedia’s self- Wikipedia employed to guard its reliability policing works. The authors agree with the on the vast majority of pages was the chance students here. Where the students show their that someone else would spot and take the naïveté—and thus where the information- time to correct the false information. While literacy curriculum of the university and the the wisdom of experts should never be taken department have fallen short—is that they uncritically and must always be understood generalize this conclusion. If crowds are in context, the instructor hoped to show good enough to tell me about Madden 17, them that experts could be relied upon at why aren’t they good enough for least to provide factual, accurate, and everything? Certainly there must be enough generally comprehensive information about laypeople who have read enough books a topic. In addition, experts could be trusted about any given topic to assure readers that to put this information into a format lay 155 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 users could easily access and understand, Although in many ways they evidenced with the most important points highlighted advanced epistemological development (in and conceptual connections emphasized. that they understand that knowledge is Crowd-generated wisdom, on the other contextual, and they are able to identify the hand, was unreliable, hit-and-miss, and most contexts and determining factors they would of all subject to faddishness and the fact that use in assessing information), students also fanatics and ideologues are the ones most demonstrated a lack of understanding about likely to take the time to write and edit the nature of knowledge among scholars. pages. Student 2 asked “Does a couple of more years of education and a Ph.D. really make How this failed! The students took away the someone more qualified than the average pragmatic lesson that Wikipedia was person? What if a person reads multiple generally reliable, almost always useful, and books on a subject? Or what if another that its self-policing mechanisms were person has experienced something so many mostly effective, particularly when it came times that it becomes a second nature to him to popular or especially controversial pages. or her?” Certainly, practical and empirical In fact, as Student 3 stated above, a knowledge is useful and can be superior in credentialed, “fact-checked” expert may be some contexts. However, this student and wrong, as frequently erroneous “media others failed to show an understanding that reports” show us. Underpinning this is the credentials (such as a Ph.D.) do not come vast philosophical divide between someone from simply “reading multiple books on a in the professionalized, credentialed subject,” that scholars must have their own “knowledge industry” like the instructor, contentions and conclusions vetted by other and someone preparing for a life and career specialists in a field before publishing. The where absolute truth, absolute credibility, authors of this article suspect that such a and absolute reliability are illusory, and misunderstanding of how scholars and knowing what is “good enough”—and when researchers generate, verify, and and how one uses that—is key. None of disseminate knowledge may underlie such these students was seeking (or has entered) cultural phenomena as global-warming careers in academia or research, and thus the denial or the belief that vaccines cause problems of generating and validating autism. The students seemed to imply that knowledge may have seemed esoteric and the only thing differentiating scholars’ irrelevant to them. They may naturally feel information from laypeople’s is that that “good enough for now” information is scholars have read a few more books and sat good enough. However, Allison Head through some classes. (2012), the lead researcher for Project Information Literacy, found that employers The expectation was not that students would were dissatisfied with recent college hires’ avoid Wikipedia after participating in the research skills because of this tendency to project, but that they would approach satisfice for quick and easy answers; if Wikipedia with an understanding of the employees want persistent researchers circumstances under which it would be willing to dig deeply to find the best appropriate to use. Wikipedia may never be sources, then academic research may not be objectively reliable because there is no as dissimilar to “real-world” research as formalized process in which credentialed students anticipate. experts oversee the content, but its more popular pages are more likely to be reliable

156 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 because the “crowd” will filter out blatant sources than individuals, and because many inaccuracies and misinformation. Thus, the Wikipedia editors and writers are active in intent was to make students aware of the maintaining the site, the students reasoned differing information needs that would or that Wikipedia is much more reliable than would not warrant using Wikipedia. they had previously believed. By undermining the simple Manichean formula This qualified failure may speak to some of that they had taken—not entirely the difficulties of teaching information justifiably—from the first-year information- literacy at the postsecondary level. The literacy class (Wikipedia = bad, scholarly = Middle States Commission on Higher good), this assignment inadvertently opened Education evaluates member schools on the door to another form of naïveté and bias how they teach information literacy, and in which students mistake investment in a Duquesne University requires a single, one- set of information or data for unbiased credit, stand-alone information literacy expertise in that set of information. course taught in the first semester to meet Ironically, an assignment intended to make those requirements. Essentially all of the students more skeptical of Wikipedia ended nine undergraduate colleges, though, also up accomplishing precisely the opposite. In embed information literacy in each of their this case, the instructor largely succeeded in majors as well, and this is true for the teaching critical reception and analysis of a English major. While this class was a source—that is, the students demonstrated capstone course for the English major, their understanding of Wikipedia’s embedded in the class’ guidelines were drawbacks and strengths—but that didn’t information-literacy competencies, necessarily translate into successfully particularly the ability to find, understand, training students to using that source evaluate, and use various kinds of appropriately in their own research and information that Standard Three of the writing. Such skills are surprisingly ACRL’s Information Literacy detachable and thus instructors may need to Competencies describes. plan accordingly.

In grappling with Standard One’s It is important to note that this project is performance indicator of “identifying the only a small case study, without any purpose and audience of potential rigorous longitudinal benchmarking, control resources” and Standard Three’s groups, large body of data, or pre- and post- performance indicator of “recognizing the tests. Moreover, the data set is quite small; cultural, physical, or other context within only five students were able to take part in which the information was created and the follow-up study. Therefore, the understanding the impact of context on conclusions reached by the investigators interpreting the information,” students should be viewed as suggestive, not focused too heavily on the fact that some dispositive. Nonetheless, they are a small contributors to Wikipedia were indeed indicator of larger trends related to experts and some contributors were Millennials’ information literacy that more energetic and heavily invested in the site, comprehensive studies and general-interest whether disinterestedly or not. Because journalism alike have identified: a there are legitimate experts contributing to skepticism about uncritical acceptance of Wikipedia sites, because crowds can credentialed expertise, a willingness to genuinely be better and more accurate accept information from uncredentialed

157 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014 sources, and an openness to Hunter, R. (2011, March). Erasing “property “” that may promise the more lines”: A collaborative notion of authorship democratic or even egalitarian information and textual ownership on a fan wiki. environment that Internet utopians and Computers and Composition, 28(1), 40–56. optimists predict or may, as Maggie Jackson doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2010.12.004 warns, portend a “coming dark age” (Jackson, 2009). Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. REFERENCES Retrieved from http:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/ Association of College and Research wiki Libraries (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Jackson, M. (2009). Distracted: The erosion Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ of attention and the coming Dark Age. standards/informationliteracycompetency Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.

Boesveld, S. (2011, May 30). Can King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Wikipedia improve students' work? Developing reflective judgment: National Post. Retrieved from http:// Understanding and promoting intellectual news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/30/can- growth and in adolescents wikipedia-improve-students-work/ and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, H. (2010). The perspectives of higher Levine, R. (2006, August 7). The many education faculty on Wikipedia. Electronic voices of Wikipedia, heard in one place. The Library, 28(3), 361–373. doi: New York Times. Retrieved from http:// 10.1108/02640471011051954 www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/ /07wiki.html Cummings, R. E. (2009). Lazy virtues. Teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia. Lih, A. (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. How a bunch of nobodies created the Fisher, K. (2005, December 11). Wikipedia world’s greatest encyclopedia. New York: hoaxster [sic] found, but a solution for Hyperion. Wikipedia is still lacking. . Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/ Loudermilk-Garza, S., & Hern, T. (2012, uncategorized/2005/12/5739-2/ October 19). “Collaborative writing tools: Something wiki this way comes-or not!” Head, A. (2012). Learning curve: How KAIROS, 10(1). Retrieved from http:// college graduates solve information english.ttu.edu/kairos/10.1/binder2.html? problems once they join the workplace. doi: http://falcon.tamucc.edu/wiki/WikiArticle/ 10.2139/ssrn.2165031 Home

Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with : How today's college students use Wikipedia Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers for course-related research. First Monday, and Composition 25(4), 432–448. doi: 15(3), 1-1. doi: 10.5210/fm.v15i3.2830 10.1016/j.comcom/2008.06.001

158 Barnhisel & Rapchak, Wikipedia & the Wisdom of Crowds Communications in Information Literacy 8(1), 2014

Mangu-Ward, K. (2007, June). Wikipedia (3), 93–112. doi:10.1300/J106v13n03-07 and beyond: Jimmy Wales' sprawling Tardy, C. M. (2010) Writing for the world: vision. Reason, 39(2). Retrieved from http:// Wikipedia as an introduction to academic reason.com/archives/2007/05/30/wikipedia- writing. English Teaching FORUM, 48(1), and-beyond 12–19, 27. Retrieved from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ914884.pdf Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011, August 28). The digital revolution and Turnitin. (2011). Plagiarism and the web: A higher education. Pew Internet and comparison of Internet sources for American Life Project. Retrieved from secondary and higher education students http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College [White Paper]. -presidents.aspx Wikipedia celebrates 750 years of American Pershing, B. (2009, January 21). Kennedy, independence. (2006, July 26). The Onion. Byrd the latest victims of Wikipedia errors. Retrieved from http://www.theonion.com/ Capitol briefing [Blog]. The Washington articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of- Post. Retrieved from http:// american-indepen,2007/ voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol- briefing/2009/01/ Waters, N. L. (2007). Why you can't cite kennedy_the_latest_victim_of_w.html Wikipedia in my class. Communications of the ACM, 50(9), 15-–17. Retrieved from Pollard, E. A. (2008). Raising the stakes: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1284635 Writing about witchcraft on Wikipedia. The History Teacher, 42(1), 9–24. Retrieved Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological from http://www.historycooperative.org/ beliefs and the information-seeking journals/ht/42.1/pollard.html behavior of undergraduates. Library and Information Research, 25(2), 127– Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of 142. doi: 10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00003-3 composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia. College Composition and Young, J. R. (2006, June 12). Wikipedia Communication, 61(2), W351-W373. founder discourages academic use of his Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/ creation. [Wired Campus blog]. The NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/0612- Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved dec09/CCC0612When.pdf from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder- Seelye, K. Q. (2005, December 4). Snared discourages-academic-use-of-his- in the web of a Wikipedia liar. The New creation/2305 York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/ Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011, January weekinreview/04seelye.html? 13). Wikipedia, past and present. Pew pagewanted=all Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/ Swanson, T. (2006). Information literacy, Reports/2011/Wikipedia.aspx personal epistemology, and knowledge construction: Potential and possibilities. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 13

159