Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is controlled by everyone, yet no one. Users can contribute, edit, or amend content that is posted and available to anyone that is searching for information. This open-editing process means that the information on the site is reviewed and regulated by other users and not by a constant presence, such as a webmaster. For this reason, its entries have been known to contain intentional or unintentional errors. For instance, John Seigenthaler, Jr., an assistant to Robert F. Kennedy, was improperly linked on Wikipedia to both Kennedy assassinations. (1) Although it has been shown to be useful to students, teachers, librarians, and reporters, it is acknowledged that this open source of user-generated entries raise issues of credibility for those who rely on it for information. Nevertheless, the April 2007 Pew Internet and American Life Project found that over a third of American homes with Internet access use Wikipedia as a reference. (2)
This study addresses how communication and mass communication students use Wikipedia as an academic tool and how credible they deem the Web 2.0 encyclopedia to be. The findings suggest that students do not use Wikipedia much for their school-related work and they use it as a jumping off point for continued research, if they use it at all. The results also indicate that students do not use Wikipedia because they strive to find information in more credible sources. As indicated by their open-ended responses, students say their professors warn them against using Wikipedia as a reliable source for their school work.
WIKIPEDIA
Academics have expressed their concerns with students' use of Wikipedia in both the mainstream and trade press. In an essay in Communications of the ACM, Neil Waters admitted that he does not allow his students to cite Wikipedia in their class projects because some of the online encyclopedia's facts are mixed with opinion. Waters writes that he expects his students to verify any information found on Wikipedia, therefore, it cannot be the only source they reference for information. (3) Echoing Waters, the Middlebury College history department banned Wikipedia as a credible source in any work done by its students, stating that "students are responsible for the accuracy of information they provide and they cannot point to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors." (4)
The conventional wisdom among college teachers is that Wikipedia should only be used as a catalyst for deeper research. When used for this purpose, students can search for terms and use the results as a vehicle to strengthen their research skills. (5) Even more telling, Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, also agrees that Wikipedia should not be the final source, but he credits many of the articles as being "authoritative sources" and "students should take advantage of them." (6) To combat deliberately false contributions, another online service, WikiScanner, is available to trace any significant changes to the entries. (7)
Wikipedia as an Academic Tool
Li did an analysis of web credibility literature and found that it covered four areas: (1) the credibility of media channels; (2) information source; (3) how users' media use influences perceived credibility; and (4) the basic user characteristics. (8) Lankes expanded on this research, finding that online research results in "information self-sufficiency." (9) Young people rely upon online sources as an effort to gain "control and satisfaction" over their research. This do-it-yourself type of research is only strengthened by young people's reliance on the web for a variety of other uses. In a study of more academic-related uses of the web, Metzger, Flanagan, and Zwarun found that college students rely on the web for educational and general information. (10) The study revealed that students also found the web to be a more credible source than did older respondents. Because younger people have a general trust in this information, college students do not verify the content they find online.
Although the study of Wikipedia is a relatively new area of inquiry, there are a few works that investigate the credibility and authoritativeness of Wikipedia's entries. Korfiatis, Poulos & Bokos determined that credibility questions are heightened for topics dealing with more controversial views such as history or politics. (11) The authors also determined that evaluating Wikipedia contributions is problematic because of the dynamic flow of these contributions and the decentralized nature of the editing process. It should be noted, that many of Wikipedia's voluntary editors do this chore as a way of gaining some social status. A study of 22 Wikipedians revealed that although their posts are anonymous, frequent contributors recognize the credible and quality work that others have done. (12)
Some researchers have tried to find some sort of formula to verify the value of a Wikipedia entry. Weaver, Strickland, & Crane found that Wikipedia does provide accurate information and has contributors with a high degree of authority. (13) Their research showed that faulty or questionable entries are edited or erased by those with high credibility. The more a submission is edited, the higher the quality. Entries that are higher in demand or on more popular topics tend to be of a higher quality. (14) Dondio and Barrett, in an attempt to identify the trustworthiness of the entries found on Wikipedia, created a computational measurement for trust. (15) Although the authors found it difficult to create a measure that could assess the constantly changing Wikipedia environment, the authors found some patterns in the posted submissions. For example, longer pieces on topics with low importance may receive both diminished trust and credibility.
What is unanswered by the existing research is how information those who will be dispensing information feel about using this, somewhat, controversial tool. Communication and mass communication students are in programs that emphasize sound information gathering. It could be assumed that these participants, more than other students at the university, are equipped to determine the value of Wikipedia as a cogent and complete information source. At the heart of this study, the researchers were interested in determining how the ease of Wikipedia juxtaposed with the students' interest in presenting credible.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The existing research demonstrates that college students rely on the Internet throughout their academic careers. Their process of gathering information via the web indicates their desire to have both more control over and easy access to the information they seek. Based on these findings and the open collaboration involved in the relatively new source of Wikipedia, this work focuses on three research questions:
RQ1: What motivates communication and mass communication students to use Wikipedia?
RQ2: How much credibility do these students place on the information found on Wikipedia?
RQ3: How do these students use Wikipedia in their school work?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants in this study were 540 undergraduate students in the College of Communication and Information of a large public university in the Southeastern United States. The students were studying communication, journalism, electronic media, and public relations, and advertising. Eighty-five percent of respondents call the "South" home. There were 194 (37.5%) males and 323 (62.5%) females (23 missing) and ranged in age from 18-28; most of them (412) fell between the ages 18-21. Respondents were given either research participation points or extra credit for their participation in this study.
The respondents report having a wide range of electronic devices, including desktop computers (31.3%); laptops (82.6%); mp3 players (60.1%); and cell phones (89.9). Surprisingly few, 18.1%, report that they also have traditional landline phones. According to the survey, 21% of the respondents indicated that they visit Wikipedia once a week or more or on a "frequent" basis. However, the vast majority, 70.4%, are infrequent visitors to Wikipedia; "infrequent" being defined as visiting the Wikipedia site less than once a week. Finally, 8.2% of the respondents have never visited the Wikipedia website.
Design
This survey was distributed online. The URL was sent via email to the participants, and they were asked to complete the study within a week of receipt. The instrument asked the respondents to indicate the purpose and motivations for using Wikipedia. Lastly, demographic data was collected.
Variables
Overall Motivations for Using Wikipedia: This five point scale (Strongly disagree to strongly agree) contained 11 items: I use Wikipedia because it is a good source of information; I use Wikipedia to complete homework assignments; I use Wikipedia to get up-to-date facts and information; I use Wikipedia because it provides a new outlook on learning; I use Wikipedia because it's educational; I use Wikipedia to find articles; I use Wikipedia because it is an excellent source of information; I use Wikipedia so I can do better in school; I use Wikipedia to conduct research for class; I use Wikipedia because it is convenient; I use Wikipedia because I don't trust what is found in class textbooks; I use Wikipedia because I want to know what isn't being written in traditional sources. The reliability coefficient was .947 for the Wikipedia scale.
Wikipedia Credibility: Seven items were asked to determine how credible students thought Wikipedia was. These statements were: I think Wikipedia is a credible source; I check to see if the information I find on Wikipedia is current; I check to see if the information I find on Wikipedia is complete; I check to see if the information on Wlkipedia is comprehensive; I consider whether the information I find on Wikipedia is biased; I seek out other information to verify what I find on Wikipedia; I trust those who add/edit information to Wikipedia. The reliability coefficient for this scale was .820. Additionally, two open-ended items asked about the students' thoughts about the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia.
Academic Purposes of Wikipedia: Five (Strongly disagree to strongly agree) statements, using a Likert-type scale, measured the respondents' use of Wikipedia. These statements asked: I use Wikipedia's information in my class papers, projects, or other research; Wikipedia is the only source I use for my class papers; Wikipedia is the primary source of information I use for my papers, projects, or other research; and I use Wikipedia to do preliminary (early) research for my class projects; and I have cited Wikipedia as a source in work that I have done in college. The reliability coefficient for this scale was .883. Finally, an open-ended question asked how the students use Wikipedia in their schoolwork.
FINDINGS
RQ1: What motivates communication and mass communication students to use Wikipedia?
Those surveyed tend to reflect neutral responses regarding their motivations for using Wikipedia. Still, the data indicates that the respondents lean toward using Wikipedia for information retrieval or educational purposes.
Respondents claim that their motivations for using Wikipedia are to find articles (mean 2.92/5); as an excellent or good source for information (mean = 2.88/5, mean = 2.87/5, respectively), and as a way to complete homework assignments (mean = 2.86/5).
Respondents score other potential purposes for Wikipedia lower. Responses such as an alternative to traditional sources, tool for doing better in school, and a new perspective on learning all ranked below a mean of 2.67/5.
RQ2: How much credibility do these college students place on the information found on Wikipedia?
The survey reveals that the respondents have varying views about Wikipedia's credibility.
With this lack of perceived credibility in mind, it is interesting to note that the student respondents make some effort to support what they are finding on Wikipedia.
The college students in this study are mildly concerned with biases that may be found in the Wikipedia entries. Nearly half of the respondents reported that they keep in mind potential bias when reading the entries. More respondents (63.1%) sought out other information to verify what they find on Wikipedia. This finding is in line with the result that only 11 % of respondents trust those who add/edit information to Wikipedia.
The open-ended questions find that some students trust the information found on Wikipedia because they have had positive experiences in the past using the site. For example, "They over see (sic) it and I have had friends try to post and things get deleted." (162) One wrote, "They have an extensive page on Radiohead (the rock band) that is fairly accurate." (143) Another credited his professor with encouraging usage, "I have a professor that used it once as a source for lecture. So that makes me think it is reliable, but otherwise, I would not." (579) Conversely, one student blamed his professors for ruining Wikipedia's reputation,
"It is generally sourced, contrary to the beliefs of most instructors. If the information is not credibly sourced, despite the (at times) disparaging stance many instructors seem to take towards the intelligence/wisdom of students I see on a regular basis, most will disregard it or suffer the consequences of their own willing ignorance." (38)
The second type of response indicated that they did not trust Wikipedia at all. Many simply replied, "I don't think it is reliable." (61) One elaborated on this idea writing, "it's not (credible) because anyone and their dog can edit the content." (9)
Another responded, "I don't think the information is reliable, because anyone can type anything in." (61) A few participants indicated that the value of Wikipedia decreases over time. One student said that freshmen use it more than upperclassmen. Another wrote,
Because when you are searching for something on google.com, wikipedia is one of the first things to come up so people think if it is at the top of the list it must be reliable ... and wikipedia ends in ".org" that is why I thought it was a reliable source at first. I was wrong though, I didn't realize that you could edit information at first. (38)
RQ3: How do these college students use Wikipedia in their school work?
The students also were asked to report how they use Wikipedia for their homework and research projects. The following numbers make sense when considering that only 13.9% responded that they always or frequently trust the information they receive from Wikipedia.
An open-ended question provided information that students who did use Wikipedia in some capacity for their classes, papers, and projects use it because it is convenient and offered a good summary of topics that may have been unfamiliar. The level of ease associated with Wikipedia frequently appears in the answers ("easy access,"(4)"easy to find," (33) "sometimes it's quick and easy for known facts." (57))
Some students note that Google searches often result in a Wikipedia entry, making the site an immediate source:
I primarily use Wikipedia to help me find preliminary information, and the only reason for that is because Wikipedia is so prominent in all Google and other searches. I generally don't (use it), but when I do I use it because it is generally easy to understand and presented in a direct manner. (50)
Similarly, "I will Google a topic and if a Wiki URL shows up I will look and read it, but that's just for basic background research." (87)
This idea that Wikipedia is fodder for further research is stated, in some way, in a majority of the responses. For example, one student wrote: "I do not use it as a primary source, but I will use it to begin my research on a given topic. I do this because of the sites ease and accessibility to information; it is all in one place." (54) One respondent wrote, "I don't think Wikipedia is totally reliable. This is just a quick and easy way to find the information that you need to get started on a project." (62) Another said, "I don't believe it's reliable, but a place to start. Most of the info is correct to a point, you just have to look it up to make sure that it's correct and complete." (165) One of the more telling responses was: "I only use it for introductions to unfamiliar topics. If the material is well cited and credible, then I will use it as a base point for my research." (180) One student spoke for a bulk of the responses:
It is a user-friendly site that contains a wealth of information on a vast variety of topics, both contemporary and historical. Though the accuracy of the information is questionable at times, when used as a secondary source, it serves as an excellent primer for subjects before delving further into them using another, more authoritative source. I might look up a Civil War general, and read a bit about him on Wikipedia, so that I can "hit the ground running" when I go read more on the subject using an encyclopedia or biography. Also, the information on Wikipedia is often linked to the original site where that information came from, and it can therefore be validated. (55)
DISCUSSION
These findings suggest that professors may be more concerned about the use of Wikipedia than is truly warranted. Students acknowledge the possibly problematic nature of the user-contributed online encyclopedia and many students make an effort to check the information found in the entries. Academic/school-related activities were the primary motivators for students using Wikipedia. The respondents only reported being slightly motivated to use the site at all. This level of motivation is quite meaningful when it is considered with the study's other findings. Because many of the students have the need to use, cite, and rely on other information to corroborate what is found on Wikipedia, they are not significantly drawn to the site. Wikipedia may not be a destination but a convenient starting place that is akin to asking a stranger about a topic. Wikipedia was not the first stop for information because the students indicated that they often found Wlkipedia entries when searching Google.com. It is possible that without the direct link from Google.com, even fewer students would use the site.
The research reveals two categories of communication and mass communication students' use of Wikipedia for their school work: (1) Wikipedia as the Forbidden Zone; (2) Wikipedia as Catalyst. These categories, developed from the closed-ended and open-ended questions, are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the first category explains the second category. While most of the student respondents recognized the shortcomings of using Wikipedia as a source in their academic work, they do use it to start the research process. This finding provides some insight as to how communication and mass communication students (and perhaps other students) approach their schoolwork.
Wikipedia as the Forbidden Zone
Somewhat surprising to the researchers, the student respondents indicate that they do not use Wikipedia much in their schoolwork. In this case, there is some indication that all students-no matter how much effort they put in their schoolwork-are concerned with possible ramifications to relying solely on this online encyclopedia.
Students regard the site as forbidden for two distinct reasons. First, they simply do not trust the information. Perhaps the students, who are relatively tech-savvy, recognize the errors that may occur on Wikipedia. Perhaps they have heard of, seen, or contributed errors to the entries, so they have opted to not rely on what is easily available on the site. Second, the students may not use the site (or, at least indicate that they use the site) because as a student noted, their professors have "put the fear of God" in them about using it for their schoolwork. The students' open-ended responses frequently mention that they do not use the site because their professors were fiercely against it. This finding is not surprising as these students have professors who, by and large, have come from various communication-related industries. These professors know the harm that can come from using faulty or unverifiable information and wam their students accordingly.
Wikipedia as Catalyst
While a majority of students stated that they do not use Wikipedia largely due to professors' admonitions, some claim the tool as a research catalyst, providing a "jump start" for their work. In other words, students will rely upon Wikipedia to give them a quick preview of a subject about which they know little or are completely unfamiliar. Students use this preliminary learning to launch them on their search for information using more legitimate and widely recognized sources.
For example, if writing a paper on China's television stations, a student may visit the Wikipedia site for background on television development on the mainland, the primary television stations, and the program composition of each channel. This information would be used to guide the students to look for more specific information on these specific items either in academic or popular sources. In short, Wikipedia might be considered a digital version of a launch pad, where the students receive just enough information to propel their work further. It is nothing more than offering quick background information for further exploration.
Although information gathering and interpreting skills are important for nearly all careers, these findings are especially salient for the students who participated in the study. These students are interested in working in communication fields; their ability to discern between supposition and fact is essential to their careers. Whether the students are interested in becoming journalists, advertisers, or corporate communicators, their ability to gather useful information from the Internet will be a part of their daily work. Most participants acknowledged that Wikipedia has its purpose, but they also asserted the necessity of doing additional research. Of course, these students have the luxury of time to do second and third searches for information. The pressures of deadlines, corporate efficiency, and highly competitive industries may lead the students to rely solely on Wikipedia for quick information that they may deem to be credible enough.
CONCLUSION
The study suggests that students strive for accuracy in their academics. While it is difficult to determine if the study's responses accurately reflect the students' attitudes about Wikipedia or if these responses are what they think professors want to hear, the students' repetitive responses indicates that the findings are representative. The responses show that the students (1) strive for credible and reliable information and (2) follow their professors' warnings to take care when using information. Of course, the latter result also reveals that professors are explicitly telling students not to use Wikipedia because of the inherent concerns with its open format.
Interestingly, the open-ended responses indicate that there is a small, deeply devoted group who recognize that Wikipedia is a useful tool and would be cited often as a legitimate source if only their professors would allow them to do so. At first glance, this minority seems to be uninterested in the credibility of the source. However, as several of the study's participants indicate, the more Wikipedia is used and perused by those seeking knowledge, the more credible the entries will become. In other words, this small faithful group of users may spur more consistent and accurate information.
While the results speak about the student respondents, they also speak to the value of this online resource for professors. Because many students answered that they use Wikipedia as a 'jumping off point,' this process could become an exercise that faculty could use to teach the students secondary research skills. The information on Wikipedia also could serve as the foundation for research involving government documents or as investigative reporting activity. In other words, the value of Wikipedia may be more than just a glorified encyclopedia for students. It could be a fluid instrument to teach journalism students to be better critical thinkers, researchers, and reporters.
This study is just the beginning of how information gathering in the Web 2.0 world can be researched. For example, the depth of the open-ended questions in this study could be explored in a qualitative assessment of student use of Wikipedia. Student use of a variety of sources available via Web 2.0-MySpace, Wikipedia, Folksonomies-could all be investigated. Furthermore, this project could be expanded into a broader study to determine how students judge online credibility and how professors teach it.
Direct Reprint Requests to:
Naeemah Clark
1363 Wenlock Road
Knoxville, TN 37922
NOTES
(1) Katherine Mangu-Ward, Wikipedia and Beyond, Reason, 39 (June 2007), np.
(2) Trusting Wikipedia, Online 31 (July/August 2007), 6.
(3) Neil L. Waters, Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in my Class, Communications of the ACM 50 (September 2007), 15.
(4) Brock Read, Middlebury College History Department Limits Student use of Wikipedia, Chronicle of higher Education 53 (February 16, 2007), 39.
(5) I. Barker, Wlkipedia Founder Hits at 'Bad Educators,' Times Educational Supplement (December 14, 2007), 14.
Sorin A Matei, Wikipedia Won't Go Away, So Learn How to Use it, Scientific Computing 24 (April 2007), 8.
Chris Harris, Can we Make Peace with Wikipedia?, School Library Journal 53, (June 2007), 26. Rhonda Morrissette, What do they Know? Knowledge Quest (May/June 2007) 35, 14-17.
(6) Katherine Mangu-Ward, Wikipedia and Beyond, Reason, 39 (June 2007), np.
(7) Katie Haffier, Lifting Corporate Fingerprints From the Editing of Wikipedi, New York Times 156 (August 19, 2007), 1-18.
(8) Dan Li, Empirical Studies of Online Information Credibility: An Assessment of Research Methods, http://lidan.net/backup/Documents/My%2Owork/courses/winter- 2006/independent_study/empirical%20studies%20of)%2OOnline%20 information%20Credibility.doc. (Accessed October 8, 2007).
(9) R. David Lankes, Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools. In MacArthur Digital Media Series, Volume on Credibility (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 2008) http://www.DavidLankes.org
(10) Miriam J. Metzger, Andrew J. Flanagin & Lara Zwarun, College Student Web Use, Perceptions of Information Credibility, and Verification Behavior, Computers & Education 41 (2003), 271-290
(11) Nikolaos Korfiatis, Marios Poulos, & George Bokos, Evaluating Authoritative Sources using Social Networks: An Insight from Wikipedia',' Online Information Review 30, (2006), 252-262.
(12) Andrea Forte and Amy Bruckman, From Wikipedia to the Classroom: Exploring Online Publication and Learning, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (2006). http://www.static.cc.gatech.edu/-asblpgpers/forte-bruckman-iclsO6.pdf
(13) Gabriel Weaver, Barbara Strickland, Gregory Crane, Quantifying the Accuracy of Relational Statements in Wikipedia: A Methodology, JCDL (2006), 358.
(14) Dennis M. Wilkinson and Bernardo A. Huberman, Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, First Monday 12 (2007). URL:http://firstmonday.org/issues/issuel2_4/ wilkinson/index.html
(15) Pierpaola Dondio and Stephen Barrett, Computational Trust in Web Content Quality, Informatica 31 (2007), 151-160.
TABLE 1: MEANS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS'STATED MOTIVATIONS FOR USING WIKIPEDIAAs a way to find articles 2.92/5As an excellent source of information 2.85/5As a good source of information 2.87/5As a way to complete homework 2.86/5TABLE 2. STUDENTS RESPOND TO "I THINKWIKIPEDIA IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE."Disagree/Strongly disagree 46.6%Agree/Strongly agree 19%Neutral 34%TABLE 3: PERCENTAGES OF RESPONDENTSWHO CHECK TO SEE IF WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES ARE:Current 41%Complete 41.3%Comprehensive 40.2%TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS ANSWER"HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE WIKIPEDIA FOR CLASS WORK?"Always/Frequently 13.4%Rarely 30.0%Never 34.4%TABLE 5. PERCENTAGES FOR "HOW OFTEN IS WIKIPEDIATHE ONLY SOURCE YOU USE FOR CLASS WORK?"Always/Frequently 2.7%Never 74.2%
