Traditionally, teachers discourage their students from using Wikipedia for research purposes. But a growing number of professors are embracing the site's collaborative editing capabilities as a teaching tool.

According to Diana Park, science librarian at Oregon State University, these educators are seizing opportunities to help their students explore how knowledge is constructed and shared in an age of digital media. They are also helping students practice self-assessment, a key skill for evaluating sources of information.

It's a collaborative encyclopedia

In a recent survey, the Pew Research Center found that most teachers admonished their students not to use Wikipedia as a source for homework or academic assignments. This stance is understandable, but it is also somewhat unrealistic given that students in many classrooms are using it as a primary research tool (Konieczny 2012).

Nevertheless, educators do have a lot to gain from teaching students how to critically assess massive amounts of information found online for both school work and personal exploration. Specifically, learning how to evaluate the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia entries is an important part of that process.

Unlike a traditional paper-based encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an open-source project, meaning that anyone can edit it. As a result, articles can change without warning, often due to vandalism or revert wars. In addition, users can add obscene content or posts that are in violation of user guidelines and policies.

It's a free resource

Teachers are often adamantly opposed to using Wikipedia, citing its crowd-sourced content and open editability. However, students love the site, claiming that it provides easy-to-follow, straightforward information.

For teachers, the issue becomes how to utilize it effectively in the classroom. While it does not replace traditional assignments, it can be a valuable addition to the learning process, allowing students to learn new skills and contribute to a larger community.

It can also be used to teach students information literacy, a key skill that helps them determine whether or not a source is credible and reliable. In addition, teachers can use Wikipedia as a platform for student participation and community building.

It's easy to access on phones

There are times when a student is given an assignment that requires research. This is when a teacher might suggest that the student use Wikipedia as a source of information.

However, this is not always the best idea. Using the wrong sources can lead to inaccuracies and poor quality work.

Therefore, it is important for teachers to make students aware of the reliability of Wikipedia and teach them how to assess its content.

In addition, it is necessary for teachers to teach students how to find out how an article was created and edited by others. This can be done by looking at the history page and the talk pages of an article.

Many people will be surprised to learn that a free encyclopedia can offer authoritative information when used properly. Nevertheless, it is not a substitute for traditional academic articles or other trustworthy sources of research.

It's not a primary source

The crowd-sourced encyclopedia Wikipedia has long been criticized by some teachers as unreliable. But it can also be a valuable research tool for students.

Unlike traditional encyclopedias, it contains citations and links to further reading and verifiable primary sources. It also helps students develop Internet and information literacy skills, as well as critical thinking skills.

Many people have doubts about Wikipedia’s credibility because anyone can edit its pages and it doesn’t always reflect the opinions of experts on a given topic. But if students are taught about the importance of fact-checking, verification, and crowdsourcing, they will be more likely to use this resource responsibly.

The National Writing Project White Paper, Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe, recommends teaching students that entries change and that they are often debated. This transparency allows them to question what they are reading in ways that static, expert-driven reference texts cannot. It also shows them that Wikipedia’s self-governance and bottom-up editing are a good thing.