Wikipedia as a Tool for the Acquisition of Knowledge

What is Wikipedia’s value?

Wikipedia is a formidable force to reckon with.  It is one of the top searches when someone types in a search query from Google.  While some say Wikipedia is full of errors, bias, and fallacies, others say Wikipedia provides a medium for many to experience history by creating it.

Pros and Cons

Rosenzweig (2006) discusses the pros and cons of an open source such as Wikipedia.  The pros of Wikipedia are many, while some will retort that they are few.  Wikipedia is nearly an equal when comparing other closed-world encyclopedia in the subject of errors and factual information.  Additionally, Wikipedia is an open forum with self-advocated historians constantly editing and correcting someone else’s errors, misconceptions, or beliefs.  It is like a constant debate forum, alive for the entire world to see.  I think it is amazing and novel to look at the discussion and see contributors arguing over facts, figures, beliefs, and ideas all rolled into the open source bundle of worldwide information.  One student wrote that Wikipedia, “is almost like playing a computer game but it is actually useful because it helps someone anywhere in the world get information that is uncluttered by junk." 

The author does point several differences between Wikipedia and other scholarly sources of factual information.  The latter sources are critiqued and written by historians who are very adept and essentially experts at what they do.  He pointed out the example of McPherson, whose writing style engages the reader with descriptive text that envelops the reader’s curiosity.   Rosenzweig points out that “Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose. By those measures, American National Biography Online easily outdistances Wikipedia.”  Rosenzweig, at the end of his article, thinks Wikipedia is certainly a source of knowledge.  He warns though that students should not use Wikipedia as a stopping point when performing research, but merely as a starting point to find a wealth of information and potential resources to delve into. 

Wikipedia as a Collective Tool of Knowledge

Sheets (2009) speaks to the idea that history is the product of that collective effort of truth seeking.  I really enjoyed this piece because it showed the evolution of one historian from being a traditionalist in the sense that even speaking the word “Wikipedia” was a taboo subject, to one who actually created a project where the students created Wiki pages.  I think this revelation accompanied by new scholarship that promotes this open-source of history is unparalleled.  While this historian still warns the teacher who intends on using Wikipedia in the classroom of the numerous risks and implications, the idea is now out on the table.  Sheets (2009) writes that Wikipedia allows students to “defend, modify, and reconsider… students see themselves as part of that democratic conversation so important to our profession.”

Wikipedia Article Analysis

Jones (2008) analyzed 10 Wikipedia articles to find patterns in revision and determine how some articles received the coveted status of “Featured.”  Essentially, he found that most articles started off with the same particular format with leads and lists; however, those that successfully made the grade were found to have stylistic rather than structural changes.  These stylistic changes turned lists into comprehensive prose and took out those paragraphs that were deemed unnecessary.  Additionally, I found it intriguing that Jones found that the overproduction of macrostructure edits in Wikipedia could be paralleled with the U.S. academic system overproduction of microstructure edits.  He postulated that if these two polarizing types of edits could be used within the classroom, then perhaps students writing skills would be better than if schools did not try to use both within the classroom context.  I really like his theory on finding a happy medium in the classroom that incorporates both.

Knowing how is practical

Ryle (1946) proposes that “knowing how” is not the runner-up to “knowing that” as many scholars presuppose.  He goes on to show examples of how knowing theory and postulating and theorizing does not lead to practical action, which many consider to be a lower form of intelligence.  I find this interesting since as many of the ancient philosophers literally sat around postulating without performing any work.  It was as if there was a sharp divide between those that were considered and allowed to wrestle with what was considered higher analytical thought and those that were simply the doers of society.  Ryle proposed that intelligence is directly exercised and it does not need to be contemplated upon.  I like how he shows that there is no difference in intelligence in someone doing something the right or wrong way, and that knowing how is knowing a rule, not postulating upon the rule itself.  He also provides a clear metaphor when describing how he believes knowledge is knowing how and that knowing that is not a precursor to such knowledge acquisition and application.  He writes, “If no one possessed any money, no one could get any money on loan. This is the turn of the argument that I chiefly use.”

Counter to the separation of knowing how and that

Snowden (2003) provides a not only a revision of Ryle’s argument, he also argues that the traditional or “Standard View” has parts that are indeed false.  Snowden argues that the possession of the capacity or ability to know something is not a necessary condition to be actually to take the knowledge and put it into effective practice.  He gives the example of the Christmas pudding.  I also appreciated his analogy of the man who can do 50 pressups while the other cannot simply because they are not physically able, not because they do not know how to do 50 pressups. 

My Personal Stance

I believe knowledge is knowing how and that.  I believe knowing how do something will work in many practical cases, but in some instances, one may have to take a step back and relate back to different theories to actually put something into practice.  Additionally, while I believe Ryle’s separation of theory and practice will work in many cases, I do put weight on those who are the thinkers of society.  Without contemplative thinkers and those who use their mind to theorize and are constantly questioning the practical application of something in order to break it down and make it better, our world would be stagnant and flat.  Additionally, I understand Snowden’s example of knowing how to do something but that may not lead to being able to actually do it.  For example, I know how to shoot a gun with very accurate aim, but this may not lead to me actually killing a deer which is my goal in order to feed my family.  Other conditions can predicate that I do not find success in the hunt even though I am a sharpshooter with the rifle. 

Follow-up


I believe using Wikipedia in the classroom can be very beneficial to students for numerous reasons.  I agree with Rosenzweig’s (2006) article that Wikipedia has become much better with accuracy and is actually is a very useful historical reference and medium.  Additionally, Wikipedia is a collective group of works that are viable and constantly evolving.  I think this application of showing students how to edit can be very useful in the classroom through the use of Wikipedia. 

I would want my students to be aware of the pitfalls of using Wikipedia as their number one source for historical information.  I would expect them to use Wikipedia as a great reference tool to find more in-depth historical sources.  As Rosenzweig suggested, historical writings by historians in many cases are well-written and its language draws the reader in and certainly tells a story.  Wikipedia should be just like Rosenzweig (2006) suggested, a “starting point” but never a “stopping point.”

I would love to have the class create a Wiki page.  For instance, I just created a lesson where students learned how to validate websites.  At the end, I suggested the class create a Wiki page so their research could be posted for others to use and draw upon in their own effort to test the validity of websites.  In creating the Wiki page, students are going to be editing one another’s responses, changing the layout, performing structural and stylistic revisions.  This process alone is very beneficial in students learning how, why, and where to edit.  This collective process of editing is like having a whole class of proofreaders in an open forum that is constantly evolving.

Jones, J. (2008). Patterns of revision in online writing: A study of Wikipedia's featured articles. Written Communication, 25(2), 262-289.

Roy Rosenzweig, “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” Journal of American History 93 (June 2006), 117–146.

Ryle, G. (1946). Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1-16.

Sheets, K. (2009). Wiki and the history classroom. Perspectives on History 47(5).

Snowdon, P. (2003). Knowing how and knowing that: A distinction reconsidered. Presidential address delivered at Aristotelian Society, London.