When I first came to Longview, you could open up a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica on the reference shelves in the front room of the library to the term "technology" and find a lengthy entry written by one of my former professors and mentor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Robert F.G. Spier, Anthropology professor emeritus, is a premier authority on technology of an ancient kind: tools of other times by which people hunted and gathered and generally made their lives and survival easier.
It's startling to think how swiftly the word "technology" has been sharpened into a far more narrow meaning and one that is mostly computer-related.
Looking at an online encyclopedia today is a far different and more complex experience than flipping through a printed volume. Search terms lead you to more search terms and and you quickly realize that a single screen is rife with research possibilities: lists of related articles, names of contributors, and sample APA and MLA citations. It can be daunting even when you know where you are headed.
Which may help explain the popular appeal of Wikipedia. It seems like only yesterday that the mere term invoked incredulousness and cynicism in the minds of college professors and, well, me. An encyclopedia that was instantly revisable and composed of collaboratively written entries and without the veracity of a refereed publication or peer-reviewed journal? Who would buy such an idea? Almost everyone, it turns out, albeit ten years later.
In late 2010, we find ourselves teaching a generation of students for whom Wikipedia is the "go-to" source. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. I now use it as a starting point for looking up things or people I know absolutely nothing about, like a band I recently heard on the radio called the Magnetic Zeroes or a term that I'd like a bit more explanation of than a dictionary will offer. It would be an unlikely starting point for my own professional research, however.
For students who are novice researchers, especially on topics new to them as so many of those they will study in the Gen Ed curriculum are, Wikipedia might, for now, appear slightly less frenetic than an online traditional encyclopedia. It can provide an informal way to get a general sense of a topic before pursuing more comprehensive coverage of it in academic or other sources located through databases.
Whether you love or hate Wikipedia, providing some context for it and counsel on how to approach it in regard to your assignment is probably time well spent. Chances are good that when it comes to investigating a topic, Wikipedia is the research power tool of choice for many students.
FYI: Clay Shirky discusses extensively the evolution of Wikipedia and its emergent features in Chapter 5 ( p.108-142) of Here Comes Everybody.
Do you encourage students to use Wikipedia? If so, what are your expectations of it? Do you establish parameters for its use? Do you overtly discourage it? Tell all.
