Wikipedia: Good or Bad?

For Thursday’s class we had to read two articles, one titled “Rhetorics Fast and Slow” by Lester Faigley, and a second titled “Made Not Only in Words” by Kathleen Blake Yancey. In addition to these, a third article read during Thursday’s class titled, “A Stand Against Wikipedia” by Scott Jaschik, discusses how Middlebury College has collectively stood against Wikipedia by not allowing students to use it as a citation. A quote from the article made by the chair of the history department at Middlebury, Don Wyatt, is “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation”. Thursday’s discussion over this article seemed to more or less agree with this quote, but to varying degrees. Most students unified around the response that Wikipedia is indeed not a citable source but a good starting point, so the “ban” on Wikipedia should be clearer as far as how it can be used.

I personally do not feel Wikipedia should ever be cited in a research paper of any kind, but this would have nothing to do with the fact that it is an internet source. As discussed by some students in class, encyclopedias of any nature are never suitable as citable sources in a research paper. Papers of this nature should always use original sources, which essentially excludes all encyclopedias or any reference type material. However, there is nothing wrong with using it as a starting point, to get background information on a topic or to find some other original sources using the bibliography on the page. If you use it only as a starting point and not as a citation, there would be no way a faculty member could ever know you went on to it anyhow, so the point is moot.

A more interesting point of discussion though was why the ban at Middlebury focused solely on Wikipedia, a newer type of media, and not any reference book such as an encyclopedia from the library. I think it definitely has to do with the fact Wikipedia is a newer technology, and everyone can be resistant to change. As Faigley would call it, Wikipedia is a fast rhetoric whereas a book may be more of a slow rhetoric. “Speed brings risks” (Faigley 7) and I think that is why faculty are wary of something like Wikipedia more so than any old encyclopedia. They probably feel like it’s more likely you will make a silly mistake in quality or factual information by using a quicker mode like the internet than if you go through the library and look through books. I would tend to agree with this, but there is a main problem. That problem is that the world is moving forward, “Fast rhetorics dominate our world” (Faigley 4), and not recognizing that print is an old medium that will slowly be used less and less in new curriculum (Yancey 28).

If a student of Yancey’s cited Wikipedia, I believe that she would view it as a learning opportunity. She would probably show the student how to use Wikipedia as an excellent beginning source of knowledge, but not as the final source. In doing this, she would be using a viewpoint that the new media of the internet is to be embraced, though we must teach students how to use it correctly. If that same student was instead a student of Faigley’s, I believe he would look down about the use more so than Yancey. He believes fast rhetorics, such as cell phones, the internet, and email, are causing a noticeable decline in quality (Faigley 4). I think he is absolutely correct, but it is because the fast rhetorics are currently going untouched by people that could teach how to properly use some of it, such as English teachers. New technology which is shaping the lives of young people should be taught in schools, teaching students how to properly use it so problems that are being encountered at schools like Middlebury College will not be happening in the future.