The faculty at Middlebury should be feeling slightly vindicated after the recent discovery by The New Yorker that one of Wikipedia's prominent editors was a fake. The editor, a supposed professor of religious studies teaching at a private university, was in fact Ryan Jordan-a 24-year-old college student from Kentucky. Jordan had been editing articles and arbitrating disputes between authors under the pseudonym "Essjay" using texts such as "Catholicism for Dummies" as a reference.
Despite such revelations, I strongly believe the Web site is built around a solid premise: that many minds are greater than one. People from all corners of the globe are encouraged to contribute to the Web site's enormous collection of articles and information. The articles are often revised in light of new contributions and suggestions from the Web site's visitors. In an effort to prevent phony experts and false articles, Wikipedia blocks known offenders from editing. The strength of the Web site is derived from the frequent use and revisions from its many visitors. Even if someone unintentionally posts inaccurate information, there is usually a knowledgeable viewer or editor able to correct the error. With thousands of revisions every hour, the Web site claims that "inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly."
In its Feb. 28 article "Middlebury Bans Use of Wikipedia," The Amherst Student portrayed the general attitude of the Amherst faculty toward the use of Wikipedia. Professors generally characterized Wikipedia as a useful starting point, but emphasized the need for students to use such sources responsibly, and to be aware that the information Wikipedia provides can be erroneous. I think this is a healthy attitude to take. Wikipedia has, many times, provided for me a valuable launching pad and frame of reference for research papers and projects. Although examples like Ryan Jordan are a noteworthy reminder of the Web site's potential pitfalls, I believe that Wikipedia remains a valuable resource for college students. The language is usually pretty straightforward, and a minute on the Web site can help clarify abstract intellectual writing on the same topic by framing it in simpler terms.
Although faculty and students should be cautious of any information found on the Internet, banning a valuable resource like Wikipedia would not encourage students to learn new methods of research. Students, who would surely continue to use Wikipedia, will simply no longer cite the Web site. Middlebury's history department stopped just short of such an outright ban on the use of Wikipedia; what it should now do is show students how to use such resources. By explaining the Web site's strengths and weaknesses, faculty can strengthen students' abilities to sort through inaccurate information not only on the Internet, but in all facets of their research.
Ultimately, all of us should be aware that Wikipedia, and other innovative sources of information, are here to stay. The best thing to do, then, is to adapt: to find a way to use such sources in a way that minimizes the costs of their drawbacks and takes advantage of the best they have to offer.
Rylan is a sophomore planning an interdisciplinary major in Chinese, economics and sociology.