While the Facebook.com group "Wikipedia is the source of all my knowledge" was created out of humor, its title has a grain of truth for many students at Dartmouth. However, the use of the popular website for academic purposes is receiving mixed reviews from faculty members.
Wikipedia.org, the free online encyclopedia that boasts the slogan "anyone can edit," has become one of the most visited websites since its creation in 2001, according to its homepage. The website holds approximately 1.5 million articles on a wide variety of subjects.
What makes Wikipedia different from other basic search engines is that all website visitors have the ability to add, remove or edit information. As a result of this feature, many question the reliability of the information found on Wikipedia and whether it is a valid source for academic assignments.
"Wikipedia is what it is: an assemblage of information posted by its user group. It is interesting [but not validated], and thus not a viable academic resource because there is no vetting of the people who post to the site," English professor Jonna Mackin said.
On campus, Wikipedia is a popular source of information for many Dartmouth students and some have begun using Wikipedia in their academic work. Faculty members, however, do not agree on the site's place in the classroom.
Many faculty members said they do not consider Wikipedia to be an entirely reliable source. Some professors use it during class, some permit its use in research papers and others adamantly oppose it.
"I have no objection to students using Wikipedia for research papers -- but with the cautions I urged. It is not the same thing as a regular encyclopedia or peer-reviewed journal article," religion professor Ronald Green said.
Green said he expects his students to use good judgment when referencing any source, making sure to analyze all text and keep a vigilant eye for potentially misleading information.
Religion professor Ehud Benor shares a similar view.
"Since the authors of Wikipedia articles are anonymous, they cannot be cited as authorities. Wikipedia is often useful as a quick orientation tool that requires verification," Benor said.
Others, however, including Asian and Middle Eastern studies professor Lewis Glinert, prohibit the use of Wikipedia in their classes. According to Glinert, Wikipedia is not a credible source of information unless the reader has the experience to filter the information in it.
"No anonymous secondary sources are reliable enough for students to use," Glinert said.
Other professors said they believe that understanding how to use a site like Wikipedia can be beneficial.
"My students just completed an assignment to create their own 'wikis' using the tool on their class blackboard site, and though the assignment was not perfect, they learned how a tool like this can be a useful for them in a different context and also some of its pitfalls," Mackin said.
Rembert Browne '09 experienced confusion regarding the validity of Wikipedia as an academic source last year when he cited a Wikipedia article in a research paper for his Writing 2/3 course. Browne's professor asked him to find a new source, saying that Wikipedia cannot be considered equivalent to other encyclopedias because someone can easily change the information found on the site.
No official guideline regarding the use of Wikipedia has been established at the College.
"Students should talk to faculty to determine if a source is credible -- it is not a violation of the honor principle to use an unreliable source unless you use it without citation. Faculty may not accept it as a source, so students should ask the faculty directly," April Thompson, director of Undergraduate Judicial Affairs, explained.
