WikiInfoLit Unit 5 Page 4
Objectivity in Wikipedia
We can only discuss objectivity obliquely in relation with Wikipedia. That is because Wikipedia does not allow Wikieditors to contribute original research; they can only report on the research of others. Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a summary and synthesis of knowledge discovered and set down by others. The biggest reason is that there is no way to verify the original research of Wikipedia contributors.
-
Click to enlarge, and read. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.
Wikipedia has policies about when information must be cited and the kinds of information sources that can be cited. They actually bear a close resemblance to the rules we give students about the kinds of sources they can cite in their papers.
-
Click to enlarge, and read. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source.
So objectivity comes up in Wikipedia only in terms of whether the published secondary sources cited by Wikieditors were objective. Above all, Wikieditors are not allowed to judge that for themselves because that would violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View.
Read The "Undue Weight" of Truth on Wikipedia, by Timothy Messer-Kruse in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Supplemental Materials:
An Open Letter to Wikipedia, by Philip Roth in The New Yorker.
Unit 5, Activity 1
Post your answers to the WikiInfoLit Google Group
- Review what we learned about cognitive authority in Unit 1. Why might Wikipedia insist on all information included in Wikipedia articles be backed up by traditionally published sources? Do you agree or disagree with this principle? Why?
- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy has occasionally come under fire because it leads to a bias in favor of existing ideas held by those with power and privilege, and against new ideas or ideas that come from people who are disadvantaged in society. How would you solve this problem?
- One type of bias is publication bias, which means that research with inconclusive or negative results doesn't get published or cited very often, while research (about the same subject) with positive results gets published and cited more. Wikipedia articles must cite published secondary sources for their information, so how does this impact Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia?