When contemplating the "Wikiality" assignment, my first inclination was to do option A: "Select a non-education related entry on Wikipedia.org and 'modify' the entry with incorrect information" noting if and when a correction was made to my change. This sounded simple enough. The entry I chose was the United States Constitution because the dates and facts associated with this topic are well-known and indisputable in that they can be traced back to original, historical documents. Thus, any change made with incorrect information would surely be corrected within the three days the assignment allotted. Or so I suspected. But alas, I will never know. Why, you ask? Because I was way more uncomfortable making such a change than I thought I would be.
As a librarian, I belong to a profession that places a high value on the credibility and authenticity of information. A librarian's purpose, if you will, is connecting accurate, reliable information with those who seek it. So option A was out of the question.
Once I determined option A was not for me, I dove into option B by comparing the Wikipedia entry on school voucher to the same entry found in the Encyclopedia of American Education, Second Edition. What I found surprised me and changed my point of view. I am librarian who, until now, thought that most librarians were generally opposed to Wikipedia. But its reputation is apparently changing.
According to my own boss, Timothy Peters, Director of Information Services at Central Michigan University, "Wikipedia should be treated like any other source...People should look at the sources the author cites and see if they did their homework" (After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme, Central Michigan Life, para. 4).
Armed with an opened mind, I examined the Wikipedia entry and the encyclopedia entry from a librarian's perspective, paying close attention to: (1) scope, (2) authority, (3) ease of use, and (4) currency. This is what I discovered:
Wikipedia's scope: Extensive with the following categories: Background, History, Definitions, Controversy (Proponents and Opponents), Implementations (Chile, Europe, Hong Kong, United States), Legal Challenges, and Political Support. Lists of Further Reading and External Links were also included.
Encyclopedia's scope: Surprisingly limited scope with only two paragraphs.
Wikipedia's authority: I didn't expect to find as many cited sources as I did. Based on what I found, I was pleasantly surprised. There were sixty-six (66) references in total. Also lending credibility was a disclosure stating that the information was from the United States’ point of view rather than a worldwide view of the subject.
Encyclopedia's authority: The brief entry was followed by a mere three references one of which appeared to be rather biased based on its title alone, "Educational Vouchers: The Private Pursuit of the Public Purse" (Butts, NYT, September 1979).
Wikipedia's ease of use: Hyperlinks to related entries throughout made for easy cross referencing and the overall entry was well organized with seven main categories.
Encyclopedia's ease of use: The index contained "school voucher" and listed four page numbers which were dispersed among all three volumes. Three of the four entries were only related topics.
Wikipedia's currency: Page last modified on 21 January 2011 at 10:52.
Encyclopedia's scope: Surprisingly limited scope with only two paragraphs.
Wikipedia's authority: I didn't expect to find as many cited sources as I did. Based on what I found, I was pleasantly surprised. There were sixty-six (66) references in total. Also lending credibility was a disclosure stating that the information was from the United States’ point of view rather than a worldwide view of the subject.
Encyclopedia's authority: The brief entry was followed by a mere three references one of which appeared to be rather biased based on its title alone, "Educational Vouchers: The Private Pursuit of the Public Purse" (Butts, NYT, September 1979).
Wikipedia's ease of use: Hyperlinks to related entries throughout made for easy cross referencing and the overall entry was well organized with seven main categories.
Encyclopedia's ease of use: The index contained "school voucher" and listed four page numbers which were dispersed among all three volumes. Three of the four entries were only related topics.
Wikipedia's currency: Page last modified on 21 January 2011 at 10:52.
Encyclopedia's currency: Published in 2001.
Until now, my use of Wikipedia has been limited to personal use and to gather background information on a topic when a student's request is a little spotty, lacking context, or is simply difficult to understand. But based on my comparison of these two entries, my viewpoint has changed. Instead of treating Wikipedia as an unreliable source, I will begin to use it more frequently. But I'll use it responsibly; verifying the sources cited. It’s an excellent starting point and one that I’ll be using with less hesitation in the future: an educational tool to enhance my future research.
School Voucher. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher
Tighe, M. (2011, January 21). After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme. Central Michigan Life.
Unger, H.G. (2001). School Voucher. In Encyclopedia of American Education (Vol. 3, pp. 948). New York: Facts on File.
No comments:
Post a Comment