In undergrad it was always interesting which professors were pro and anti-Wikipedia. Some professors were certain that Wikipedia would lead to the end of academia. Some professors felt confident that the website was always one hundred percent factual and ended any debate. More commonly, professors would advise the use of Wikipedia only for “light reference” or brainstorming. These were my favorite professors: the ones who when asked a question, “How many times was Henry Clay Speaker of the House?” would answer with, “I don’t remember—look it up on Wikipedia.” They were my favorite because they were not naive enough to think we spent hours and hours looking for obscure sources in the library, but they also realized to ban Wikipedia from the classroom would also make us use it more.
Flash-forward several years and I look (almost) everything up on Wikipedia. Historical events, theological practices, and synopsis on books and movies (it’s amazing the different connections I miss among the subplots and I find the underlying meanings and interpretations described on the site fascinating). At work, Wikipedia is also a vital component in accomplishing daily tasks. We are constantly looking up specific regiment histories, troop movements, battalion commanders, and disbanding locations. And for the most part, we take what Wikipedia says as fact. It is either sad or incredible that Wikipedia is sometimes the only source that has the information we need. Not to mention: it is really convenient.
But still, the vigilant, well-trained student in me cringes when we don’t look for a corroborating source or do more research (but who has time for that?). Unlike undergrad, when misinformation could only negatively affect my paper (and by extension my grade), this time any mistake can be detrimental to the hundreds of researchers using the tools at work. It’s a never-ending cycle. And, to add insult to injury, when mistakes are made, the likelihood of them being fixed (or fixed in my lifetime) is slim to none. So, no pressure, Wikipedia, but there is no room for mistakes.
But still, the vigilant, well-trained student in me cringes when we don’t look for a corroborating source or do more research (but who has time for that?). Unlike undergrad, when misinformation could only negatively affect my paper (and by extension my grade), this time any mistake can be detrimental to the hundreds of researchers using the tools at work. It’s a never-ending cycle. And, to add insult to injury, when mistakes are made, the likelihood of them being fixed (or fixed in my lifetime) is slim to none. So, no pressure, Wikipedia, but there is no room for mistakes.
Don’t get me wrong: I am all in favor of having Wikipedia transforming into a verb like Google (“Don’t worry, I Googled it”). It’s fast, reliable, and so far hasn’t violated my trust. However, I think the public should take it upon themselves to do a little more research and verify information in the public sphere. Yes, I realize the proactive approach requires industriousness rather than laziness (as I believe some of us have become regarding our information intake), but how else can you be a responsible, well informed, global citizen? And these days, those other sources are just a few more clicks away! Take the time, double check facts, read dissenting opinions, and form your own judgments. And by all means, put them out there for others to mull over.
By the way, Henry Clay served as Speaker three times … according to Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment