Authority

This week I was asked the question, "What do you think of Wikipedia?" A year ago, I was one of the people who questioned its validity. I would not have accepted it as a legitimate source. Today, because of three reasons, I find myself often turning to Wikipedia when I am looking for answers.

1) I have accepted Wikipedia as a valid source. This change began while reading Knowing Knowledge (George Siemens, current) and listening to Clarence Fisher (“Classroom 2.0 or You Live Where?", 2007). Their presentations put into words, concepts with which I strongly agree. As I followed their presentations, I found an answer to my concerns about, not only processing information found on the internet, but also the importance of evaluating information given to us in our lives. In this "information age," the listener has the responsibility of evaluating the message. The definition of where we turn for authority is evolving. We live in an age where we can choose our leaders. To chose anyone less than a leader who has demonstrated that they can be trusted, that they are making good decisions, and that they are accountable for their decisions is irresponsible and has the potential for serious repercussions. In a healthy 21st century society, recognizing authority is an active process versus a passive choice.

How do people learn to make such a decision? This is where the words of Fisher & Siemens come alive. We will learn by changing our relationship to information, by becoming creators and questioners of information, and by being good thinkers. (Fisher) We will learn by engaging with, versus being consumed by, material presented. And we will learn by creating networks of thinkers who serve as an effective "pipeline" for knowledge because knowledge has become fluid and the content in the pipe is constantly changing. (Siemens)

2) In accepting Wikipedia as a valid source, I believe the findings of the journal Nature - that Wikipedia and Britannica are equally accurate. My authority on that? - my internal authority (Though it helps that I found confirmation of this statement published by a source I trust, the BBC.) Wikipedia stresses accountability. Citing references is a key focus of each article and Wikipedia will be the first to point out when an article does not cite any references or sources - at the top of the page! Wikipedia asks contributors, "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Furthermore,"Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal."

They say it best themselves: "Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed... However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias."

3) Personal use of Wikipedia has proven it to be a quick, simple, reliable way to access information that is further enhanced with many links.

I have an ongoing discussion with our school librarian. She is horrified at the thought that the internet is introducing so many sources that lack "authority." Her wish for education in America is that we teach our students to become good decision makers. I believe she'll come around.