<p>I think you and I (and marite) disagree a lot less than it seems. But I think you are being unnecessarily dismissive of encyclopedias. I agree that modern encyclopedias are often mediocre, and that it's hard to imagine a uniformly excellent printed encylopedia. That's part of what has driven Wikipedia. But the initial movement to create an Encyclopedia in the 18th Century involved the greatest minds of that time, and there are some fabulous, authoritative articles in the classic early 20th Century editions of Britannica.</p>
<p>Of course, I agree with you that any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia, is more useful as a starting place than an ending place, and that it doesn't take the place of actual, focused scholarly articles. But most HS kids don't have a whole lot of access to the actual, focused scholarly articles. Hell, I live right in a community with not one but two world-class libraries where serious research is relatively easy, but my son is not allowed past the door of one, and the other's hours of operation give him about a three-hour window every other week if he needs to use it. </p>
<p>As a practical matter, most high school research papers do not involve comprehensive, skilled, or efficient research. I would be happy if I were confident that most students learned those skills in college, but I bet they don't. I think that high schools ought to be teaching the basics of research, but also respect for the intellectual principles behind research and citation. And I think that incorporating and understanding Wikipedia -- a tool that is available to and popular with 99%+ of high school students -- makes more sense than demonizing it.</p>
<p>Please. Name me one historian that has not made use of secondary sources.</p>
<p>Try to find a history of, say, Vietnam (the Vietnam War still being a topic of interest in colleges) that is up-to-date, comprehensive (that is covering more than just the American experience) and not written from either a French or American perspective (and, using Vietnamese-language sources since we're on the topic of primary sources). </p>
<p>I am not saying that every wikipedia entry is accurate or free of bias (but are books much more free of such biases?). I just do not get the wholesale condemnation of wikipedia.</p>
<p>Cross-posted with JHS. I certainly agree with JHS about the lack of access to good libraries for high schoolers. But I doubt that Middlebury has a great collection of books on a host of topics; and many will be found to rely on secondary sources, too. Granted, there is interlibrary loan. But most students do not make use of this as they begin writing their papers too late to borrow books from other libraries.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the problem with Wikipedia is it is NOT a source....it is only a repository...and a fleeting one at that. "Consider the source" is not viable with Wikipedia because it is not always evident or understood what the agenda is for its' content because the content is not owned, it is only available. </p>
<p>Microsoft has recently been exposed for having hired a guy/firm in Australia to continually monitor/update/change open source items in Wikipedia to reflect the Microsoft view of the world. We all have the option to evaluate sources.....any forum that takes no ownership for fact vs opinion is not a source. In my opinion.</p>
<p>Marite - historians do make use of secondary sources but those prime movers and shakers of all academic historical work are primary sources. Encyclopedias are and were meant to be all inclusive compendiums of knowledge and are a great resource. In some instances, old late 19th century or early 20th century editions of, let's say the Britannica, can even be used in certain contexts as primary sources - that is where the fine line of scholarly discretion and discrimination comes in. For college students part of their education ought to be some kind of introduction to acquiring that kind of critical thinking and methods of inquiry. </p>
<p>On the subject of wiki, what about Scholarpedia, which is fluid, dynamic, up-to-date but with a curator/author responsible for content, as a source?</p>
<p>Interlibrary loan: I really discovered this as an adult. (I was completely spoiled as a student.) What a wonderful thing! The only problem is that it can take weeks and weeks (or days) for a book to arrive, and I don't think most libraries make periodicals available for interlibrary loan.</p>
<p>The New Yorker article increased my respect for Wikipedia (and open-source philosophy in general) about a hundred-fold. I recommend it to all the haters out there.</p>
<p>JHS, I don't teach high school, so I'm not up to date on what's available. I do think that's a good time to start learning the skills they'll need in HS, though. </p>
<p>When I was in HS mumble-mumble years ago, we had to write eight or nine research papers junior year US history class, one for each decade we covered. We never used encyclopedias. One paper, I believe the 1920's one, we had to use only primary sources. I spent a lot of time at the microfilm machine at our county library, and pored through books of letters and autobiographies, looking for some, any, mention of the Wickersham Commission (my topic.) This was an ordinary public high school.</p>
<p>As I said, we don't let the students at the college i work in use encyclopedias as sources. They can use the college library, the town library, other nearby ones, and the extensive online databases of journals that this school (like all colleges) belongs to. They have to learn to stretch and be resilient, creative, and determined, but they can do it. And if these students (average SAT 800ish, average GPA from subpar high schools well under 3.0) can do it, I have no doubt the very well prepared students using the superior resources of Middlebury can, too.</p>
<p>Hey, Middlebury historians and political scientists likely cite Adminstration "intelligence estimates". In comparison, Wikipedia looks like Britannica.</p>
<p>Of course I understand the pedagogic reasons for telling Joe College he can't cite Wikipedia as a source. And I applaud the impulse behind that. </p>
<p>I know you must recognize the multiple levels of irony in your statement, "I like Wikipedia. I read it frequently. That's a separate question as to what is appopriate sources for students learning to be scholars." My principle would be to teach kids how to be scholars by teaching them how to use different types of sources the way scholars do, and why. Scholarship shouldn't be like the video store, with a special 21+ room for the porn.</p>
<p>If you ask Middlebury students to limit themselves to primary sources only, you will limit them to a very narrow range of topics. Likely Euro-American ones.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Wikipedia caught Microsoft, and even then, it wasn't a matter of imposing "Microsoft's view of the world", it involved a disagreement over the veracity of certain things.</p>
<p>JHS--first let me say, I also enjoyed the New Yorker article and developed new respect for Wiki after reading it.</p>
<p>I'd never tell students not to read Wki, either. Hey, I'm happy if they'll read anything written in full sentences :). Teaching them how to recognize what's a legit source and what isn't is a huge part of what I do. Which is why I'll say--look at the sources the Wiki article does, or doesn't, cite. Use them, or something similar, not the article.</p>
<p>We spend an enormous amount of time educating about websites in general. Some are citable, some are not. If they want to report on EPA mileage statistics cited in the official gov site, fine, but if they want to quote Joe Schmo's "I hate SUV's" site, not so fine. Which is why we used to give the example of Whitehouse.com versus Whitehouse.gov (not sure if they latter is still in effect, and don't really want to check! ;)).</p>
<p>Marite--there is a huge gulf between encyclopedias and primary sources. I don't think anyone is advocating primary sources only. i'm certainly not. Most good history books and journal articles are not primary sources, at least how i understand the term.</p>
<p>I think a 100% ban on ever using Wikipedia is foolish. There can be times when it is appropriate and relevant to use it. It must have been becoming a problem. I don't remember using encyclopedias as cites for college, and the same principles apply. I don't recall any profs banning encyclopedias; it seemed to be known that it would not be wise to be citing them.</p>
<p>The internet has come up with a whole treasure trove of research material but how relevant some of them are is a whole different story. </p>
<p>I don't think primary sources are the only places to get cites. But the cites should be backed up by research from someone knowlegeable of the field. It comes down to whose opinions carry adequate weight. Encyclopedias, Wikepedia give the prevailing view in our society, and note can be made of that fact. But then deeper research should be done from that point on. Anyone can go straight to these sources that are the standard synthesis of research. It's finding the threads that directly address an issue and alternative accounts from reliable or credible sources that makes research difficult.</p>
<p>I can tell that, in certain areas in which I do research, Wikipedia is MUCH better than some of the usual sources, including the Britannica. Articles are much more up-to-date, make better use of newly available primary source material, footnoting and attribution is better, scholarship is more current, authors often as or even more renowned. </p>
<p>And then I see Middlebury political scientists and their ilk citing Judith Miller in the New York Times....</p>
<p>Note: In my above post, refering to Whitehouse.com vs Whitehouse.gov, I meant to say that i"m not sure the former is in effect still, not the latter.</p>
<p>I don't think the real issue here is Wikipedia. Most likely the real issue is the sloppy, slapped together content of student papers. It's easier to publish a department wide ban on Wiki than it would be to attack the larger issue.</p>
<p>Well, if the august professors at Middlebury (and their ilk) can't teach their students to write, they have no standing for using Wiki as their whipping post.</p>
<p>Is this graph really represents data or is it a fake graph? For a minute I thought it was just a right then I saw the wikpedia thread and I start to question. I am wondering if the following graph represnt a valid data or somebody just made it up. I did not see any backup for this data and that is why I am questioning.</p>
<p>Your link in this thread doesn't work, but it works in the other thread.</p>
<p>I don't know where that graph comes from originally, but it looks generally right to me. If you look around, I'm sure you'll find plenty of data about the correlation between family income and SAT scores, and also about race and SAT scores. I think "everyone knows" that there's a significant positive correlation between family income and SAT scores.</p>
