The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was very confused. "Wiki what? Is that some kind of tropical bat?" Well, not exactly. But it does have tropical roots.
The word wiki comes from the native language of Hawaii and means "fast." Wikipedia, coined as "The free Encyclopedia anyone can edit," allows everyone to get their information "wiki wiki." That's "really fast" for all you non-Hawaiian speakers out there.
Wikipedia may not be a bad link, but it's definitely a weak one.
Photo by Elizabeth Cattell
No matter how fast it may be, the site is still frowned upon as an academic source. After all, what kind of Encyclopedia incorporates vandalism and lets you pay to have your entry altered?
Founder Jimmy Wales recently said that teachers should let younger students cite Wikipedia in their research, and those who didn't were "bad educators." He also said that once you get to college, you shouldn't be citing an Encyclopedia.
So, Jimmy, should we let students start bad habits at an early age and then yell at them for it later on? I think not. Don't get me wrong, I have no objections to the concept of a wiki. In the right context, I think they're pretty nifty. I just don't think a friggin' Encyclopedia is the place to let everyone contribute.
To become widely accepted as a legitimate and reliable info source, Wikipedia would have to give up some of the freedom that makes it so popular. But cracking down on editing policies has already caused many Wikipedians to go missing.
Speed seems to be one thing Wikipedia has going for it. It can edit and update info by the second. The Encyclopedia on your bookshelf can't do that. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica online can.
So, here's the deal kids. Wikipedia is fast, convenient, and the idea of a database that everyone can contribute to and edit is kind of cool. But an Encyclopedia is not the best medium to apply a wiki too.
When it comes to finding facts, Wikipedia may not be a bad link, but it's definitely a weak one.
Leave a comment