Extending Knowledge by Surfing Wikipedia

 

I feel we all have been told not to use Wikipedia because "it's unreliable," which, from my learning during Mr. Utecht's lesson, is the simplest dismissal of the world's largest reservoir of information. I mean, it is so interesting to consider that as popular and well-known as the database is, educators and instructors have shunned us away from the platform for years and years. But, why? The dang thing is almost consistently at the top of most general Google searches, and it is always jam-packed with information. So, why not take the time to see what makes the website so untrustworthy, then? Looking back on it, the only definitive argument a teacher ever gave me was, "Anyone has access to edit the information," and I latched right onto that belief in thinking Wikipedia will set me up for failure, just because it is drafted and run by the people. (https://piccardi.me/material/thesis.pdf)

From a few simple clicks, many years' worth of misunderstanding was thrown out the window. It is kind of funny how easy it is to forget that internet resources indeed have methods of analyzing themselves. Typically, we rely on ourselves to find and inspect whether or not sources are credible. However, Wikipedia actually does all of that for us, making our search for credibility significantly easier. People strive for efficiency and quickness these days so, really, we have just been missing out on something that provides everything we may need, and beyond, just because a teacher used a few words to dismiss it.

Not to say we should not trust our teachers, as I sure hope my students can trust what I suggest someday, but they really missed the mark in not providing students with this valuable resource. You could probably look up anything and something decent would have been written about it. Sure, it may not be dependable at times, but even the unreliability gives us something to learn from (e.g., looking at the context of the page, what the source may be missing, what it may have that is worth making note of, how the intent of the writer checks/does not check certain boxes and why).

Under most circumstances, though, when it comes to reviewing information, there are always biases and inequalities amidst a platform that seems to be so equity-based. I say this because, in many ways, Wikipedia does offer a wide array of perspectives, voices, cultures, and backgrounds that make its content so uniquely rich. Unfortunately, even in moving to view the website in a more positive light, there are still things to be improved. In no way do I want to discredit the valuable information I have learned to unlearn from my learning, but, like anything, it falls short of providing for all people.

Like surfing, you discover you can maneuver through the waves pretty comfortably after some practice. Pretty soon, you gain enough stability to stand and ride along, before inevitably crashing with a wave. And, here, that wave kind of reminds me of the biases of the internet. You finally understand the movements and pick up speed in searching the internet, but you still eventually stumble after some good rides because the wave was a bit more difficult to analyze than initially thought. Wikipedia is no expert surf engine, not that it was ever trying to be, but biased results are something we (and the analytics of the internet) can become so blind to. The content within Wikipedia, and on the Internet in general, is very skewed to cater to a white, Western perspective. Therefore, amidst this new platform I have re-discovered,  I can now move beyond the surface-level information and question how this affects communities outside this demographic. I am sure many students may be surprised to learn how much content in Wikipedia is skewed, and how a policy such as "notability" make it difficult to change the status quo (https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=comminfolit)

Just as a final thought here, I really think questioning is a valuable skill to practice in using this website, especially. You obtain new information that may have been previously looked over (like it was for me), while also growing in the analysis portion of your thinking to see how things still lack perspective and credibility if you look (or surf) hard enough.