Volume 8, Issue 1, 2014 [ARTICLE] WIKIPEDIA AND THE WISDOM OF CROWDS 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 Wikipedia 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 controversy. 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 information-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 JIMMY WALES, 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 nature 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 blog 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 Stephen Colbert 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 “democracy 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