The change in policy was prompted by the inaccurate and unsupported answers given by students who had relied on an erroneous Wikipedia entry to cram for a Japanese history exam. While the department stopped short of banning Wikipedia outright and acknowledged that its pervasiveness would make such an endeavor impossible, the decision has sparked a debate at Middlebury regarding the site's use in research. Similar questions are being asked in the fields of journalism, law and academia. Specifically, issues have been raised about how heavily the content of Wikipedia entries, written by volunteers and subject to mistakes and, at times, deliberately falsified, should be weighed.
While the use and citation of Wikipedia entries is not as prevalent at Amherst College, professors acknowledge that it is a concern. "I have seen lots of student papers referring to Wikipedia," commented Associate Dean of Students and Director of the Writing Center Susan Snively. "I've also talked about this subject with various faculty members. All of us agree that when we read research papers that use Wikipedia as a major source of information, we know the students need more guidance in finding useful sources. Although I think it seems rather extreme to ban the use of Wikipedia outright […] it makes sense to encourage students to use more reliable sources from the beginning of their research. Wikipedia might be a worthwhile starting point for finding out names, dates and basic information, but it is not considered an authoritative source by most professors I know."
"My guess is that most students use it as most non-students do-as a quick and convenient source of information," added Professor of Philosophy Jyl Gentzler. "I used it just this past weekend to settle a dispute (of little significance) with my brother about the relationship of mice to rats. I see no problem with such a use, nor apparently does the Middlebury history department. But the standards of evidence are much greater when one presents oneself as an authority in a scholarly paper or even in an examination in a particular field, and the Middlebury history department has rightly judged that Wikipedia does not meet these standards."
Many Amherst professors seem to agree that, while useful, the information available on Wikipedia is often inadequate to meet the demands imposed by coursework. "My students are unlikely to cite Wikipedia entries," said Visiting Assistant Professor of History John Broich. "I tend to have them devise their own arguments based on their readings of primary sources. When I don't do that I tend to ask them to engage with historians' arguments without referring to sources other than the primary sources or secondary works discussed in class. […] I suspect most [professors] are not interested in testing whether students can explain the reasons for this war or that war, but rather are interested in deeper questions that students can't answer by reference to any kind of encyclopedia."
Associate Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought Martha Umphrey concurred, "I certainly don't think work heavily reliant on Wikipedia research would garner a decent grade."
Despite their concerns, some professors do not agree with the policy instituted by Middlebury's history department. "It doesn't hurt to start research with Wikipedia, but students must be aware that Wikipedia in particular and the Internet in general is full of unreliable material," said recently tenured Professor of History Catherine Epstein. "Students need to learn to question Internet sources. I don't see any value in banning Wikipedia-students just need to use it responsibly."
Professor Umphrey agreed, stating, "As a general matter I don't favor banning the use of any particular Web site, and would instead advocate knowledgeable use, which would mean that students who turn to Wikipedia (and other sites that don't allow for peer review of the scholarship) as a source need to understand its limitations, and rely on it at their peril. […] I would add, though, that historical work in particular requires approaching sources with a great deal of rigor and care, and I imagine that department has gotten the attention of their otherwise unwitting students now! So the ban may be effective as an educative intervention."
Rather than ban the online tool, several professors, both here at Amherst and at other institutions, have brought Wikipedia into the classroom, often by asking students to submit their work as entries. Students in Associate Professor of History and Women and Gender Studies Martha Saxton's women's history course occasionally critique selected Wikipedia articles and work on replacing them with better-researched pieces. They then track the articles to see if any further changes are made. "It certainly is an imperfect tool," Professor Saxton said of Wikipedia. "But it seemed to me that the more sensible way to go about it was to improve it." Hopefully this will lead to Wikipedia becoming a more accurate resource in the future.