23
This article was downloaded by: [University of Teeside] On: 08 October 2014, At: 08:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK New Review of Academic Librarianship Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/racl20 Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions Gemma Bayliss a a INTO UEA London , London , UK Published online: 04 Feb 2013. To cite this article: Gemma Bayliss (2013) Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions, New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19:1, 36-57, DOI: 10.1080/13614533.2012.740439 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2012.740439 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

  • Upload
    gemma

  • View
    217

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

This article was downloaded by: [University of Teeside]On: 08 October 2014, At: 08:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Review of Academic LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/racl20

Exploring the Cautionary AttitudeToward Wikipedia in Higher Education:Implications for Higher EducationInstitutionsGemma Bayliss aa INTO UEA London , London , UKPublished online: 04 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Gemma Bayliss (2013) Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipediain Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions, New Review of AcademicLibrarianship, 19:1, 36-57, DOI: 10.1080/13614533.2012.740439

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2012.740439

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19:36–57, 2013Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1361-4533 print / 1740-7834 onlineDOI: 10.1080/13614533.2012.740439

Exploring the Cautionary Attitude TowardWikipedia in Higher Education: Implications

for Higher Education Institutions

GEMMA BAYLISSINTO UEA London, London, UK

This article presents the research findings of a small-scale studywhich aimed to explore the cautionary attitude toward the useof Wikipedia in the process of learning. A qualitative case studyapproach was taken, using literature review, institutional docu-mentation, and semi-structured interviews with five members ofacademic teaching staff from a UK Business School. Analysis foundthe reasons for the cautionary attitude were due to a lack of un-derstanding of Wikipedia, a negative attitude toward collaborativeknowledge produced outside academia, and the perceived detri-mental effects of the use of Web 2.0 applications not included inthe university suite.

Keywords Wikipedia, Web 2.0, collaboratively produced knowl-edge, information literacy

INTRODUCTION

Wikipedia, the online, open source, collaboratively produced encyclopedia,was launched in January 2001. In under a decade its English version has be-come the world’s largest encyclopedia and since 2007 has consistently beenin the top-ten most visited websites in the world (Wikipedia contributors“Wikipedia” n. pag.). Wikipedia calls itself “Wikipedia: the free encyclope-dia.” It is a not-for-profit organization built on the ethos of the free softwaremovement of the 1980s, and is free for all to use and edit. To allow for opencollaboration it uses the wiki model, established by H.G. Cunningham in1995 as a website which allowed users to comment on, and amend, withoutknowledge of computer programming and coding. For Cunningham, and

Address correspondence to Gemma Bayliss, Acting LRC Manager, INTO UEA London,102 Middlesex St., London, E1 7EZ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 37

now for Wikipedia, it was not just about the technology, it was about anethos, one of collaboration and community (Ayers, Matthews, and Yates 42).Using this technology and ethos, Wikipedia has become a leading exampleof the power of Web 2.0 and collaborative knowledge production.

During this period, the move toward the incorporation of collabora-tive teaching and learning techniques in higher education institutions (HEIs)has continued to build. The value of collaborative knowledge production,students becoming actively involved in their learning, with instructor as fa-cilitator rather than imparter, has been acknowledged by educationalists andrelated organizations, and has impacted on the teaching and learning guide-lines of individual HEIs (Alavi and Dufner 183–86).

Despite this, there is an impassioned debate surrounding the use ofthe collaboratively produced encyclopedia, Wikipedia, in higher education,and resistance by the majority toward its use, much of which is focusedon concerns of authority, accuracy, and reliability (Chen 362). In contrast,Wikipedia use among students is high. A 2008 survey of 6,492 students from150 universities (45 in the United Kingdom) found 67% of students usedWikipedia as an academic information resource (Ebrary 33). This may be setto grow following the recent successes of the encyclopedias “Wikipedia onCampus” campaign, a campaign run by Wikipedia’s parent body Wikimedia,to promote the use of Wikipedia in higher education. This has raised theirprofile in North American and British universities and led to an increasein support for incorporating Wikipedia projects into the learning process,with students both using and participating on the encyclopedia (Kolowich“Wikipedia for Credit”).

Web 2.0 plays a prominent role in the contemporary students’ life, andis becoming a more important part of professional and academic lives. Thishas resulted in their approach to information gathering differing from theirpredecessors, providing a challenge to HEIs (Shull and McCann 711–13). AsEijkman notes:

It is in this networked world that our students socialise, learn, work, formprofessional identities, and engage as members of professional networksand multiple interest groups. (“Web 2.0” 93)

With the move toward greater incorporation of collaborative teaching andlearning techniques in higher education, and the growth of Web 2.0, there isan opportunity for collaborative sources such as Wikipedia to be exploited asa teaching and learning resource, for knowledge construction, location, andretrieval. This results in a need for exploration of the reasons for the caution-ary attitude shown toward the use of Wikipedia in the learning process, andconsideration as to how HEIs approach such Web 2.0 content technologies,and the processes and results of its collaborative knowledge production andsharing. The value of this study can be found in the insight it provides to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

38 G. Bayliss

the research problem, particularly given the apparent current lack of studiesbased in UK HEIs in comparison to that of US HEIs; and the consequentrecommendations for HEIs, and suggested areas for further study.

Terminology

Terminology relevant to the research study is outlined and defined in thefollowing sections.

WEB 2.0

Given the conceptual nature of Web 2.0, a strict definition proves diffi-cult. The 2007 JISC Technology & Standards Watch report on Web 2.0 (P.Anderson) breaks the concept down into six “key ideas”: individual produc-tion and user generated content; harness the power of the crowd; data onan epic scale; architecture of participation; network effects; and openness.Examples of technologies now commonly regarded as representative of Web2.0 are blogs, social networking, tagging, RSS, and wikis (P. Anderson 14).

COLLABORATIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING

The phrase “collaborative teaching and learning” has been chosen as an“umbrella term” to represent learning in which two or more people worktogether, face-to-face, or via Web 2.0 technologies, to increase their knowl-edge. It incorporates both “collaborative learning” and “cooperative learning”models due to the inherent use of collaboration that they share, and the in-terchangeable nature of the terminology. Both models include the use ofgroups working toward specific tasks by sharing and comparing knowledge.In collaborative learning all authority is shared, whereas in cooperative learn-ing, some authority remains with the instructor. Ultimately, both represent ashift in teaching approach, from instructor, to facilitator (Panitz n. pag.)

Structure

Following an outline of the methodology the research study reviews theliterature, comparing and contrasting current research with the interviewanalysis relating to perceptions, use and understanding of Wikipedia in HEIs.Results are then discussed, highlighting the reasons found for the apparentparadox, before conclusions and recommendations are made.

METHODOLOGY

This research study looked at the perceptions and use of Wikipedia in highereducation in order to explore the cautionary attitude shown toward usingWikipedia in the learning process. Taking a qualitative case study approach,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 39

it focused specifically on the use of Wikipedia at an institutional level, al-lowing for a phenomenological study in a real-life environment, to exploreand develop theories. The case study was based on the Business School of amodern university in the United Kingdom. Three methods of data collectionwere used: literature review; review of relevant institutional documentation;and semi-structured interviews. This mixed approach provided greater con-text, and highlighted areas of correlation and discrepancy.

Literature Review

Literature review provided background, context, and direction for the re-search study. A systematic search for relevant literature was undertakenand it became apparent that whilst research into collaborative teachingand learning in UK HEIs was plentiful, the majority of current researchstudies into perceptions and use of Wikipedia by academic teaching staffand students in HEIs were based in the United States. In order to en-sure currency of information regarding Wikipedia projects and campaigns,the Twitter feeds of the Wikipedia community newspaper “The WikipediaSignpost” (@wikisignpost),the high profile Wikipedian Philippe Baudette(@philippewiki), and Wikipedia’s own feed (@Wikipedia), were followedand monitored.

Institutional Documentation

Institutional documentation referring to the use of collaborative teachingand learning, and the use of Wikipedia by students, were sourced from theuniversity website and Virtual Learning Environment to provide context forthe interviews and corroborate related interview responses. Documents pro-viding information regarding teaching guidance, in particular collaborativeteaching and learning, were available. As were guidance materials producedby Library Staff to assist students with information retrieval, use, and eval-uation. However, the university had no official policy regarding the use ofWikipedia, and information was therefore sought through Email communi-cation with the Business School Library Staff to determine the “unofficialpolicy” regarding the use and evaluation of Wikipedia by students.

Interviews

Review of the literature and documentation provided the framework andcontext for the subsequent interviews. Semi-structured interviews were em-ployed in order to provide a consistent structure in the five interviews whileallowing for a level of flexibility to explore areas of interest in greater de-tail. Lasting approximately 90 minutes, the interviews were divided intothree sections: attitudes toward collaborative teaching and learning; attitudes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

40 G. Bayliss

TABLE 1 Use of collaborative teaching and learning, and Web 2.0

Participants

A B C D E

Use collaborative teaching and learning methods with students√ √ √ √ √

Use Web 2.0 collaborative applications with students√ √ √ √ √

Use Web 2.0 in personal and professional non-teaching role√ √ √ √ √

Actively contribute on Web 2.0 applications√ √ √ √

Legend:√

yes; ✗ no.

toward the use of Wikipedia in the learning process; and perceptions, useand understanding of Wikipedia (see Appendix).

Members of academic teaching staff from the Business School wereapproached and invited to interview. Potential interviewees were those mem-bers of teaching staff with experience of using online teaching tools for col-laborative teaching and learning, through either distance or blended learning.All participants, therefore, had prior experience using Web 2.0 applicationswith students. Five members agreed to participate. The included tables pro-vide an overview of their experiences of (Table 1), and attitudes toward(Table 2), collaborative teaching and learning and Web 2.0 applications.

Following transcription, interviews were analyzed using open coding.Secondary analysis was conducted using thematic charts, each code beinggiven a row, and each participant a column, allowing for code comparisonand interviewee comparison. This enabled the researcher to identify patterns,emerging themes, and areas of corroboration and discrepancy appearing inthe interviews, and between the interviews and the literature review.

Limitations

The research study was of a small scale, exploratory nature. Only five in-terviews were conducted, and as such they cannot lead to general conclu-sions. Limitations were also experienced in relation to the methods of data

TABLE 2 Attitudes toward collaborative teaching and learning, and Web 2.0

Participants

Opinions of: A B C D E

Attitude toward collaborative teaching and learning

Attitudes toward using Web 2.0 collaborative applications

Legend: Largely positive; positive, but with a number of caveats; largely negative.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 41

collection. With regards the literature review, the lack of available Britishresearch led to the research base being widened to include North Americanstudies. Collection of institutional data also posed a challenge due to the lackof a university policy on Wikipedia use, and the inability to confirm whetherall relevant materials had been located.

ANALYSIS

Perceptions of Wikipedia

During a review of the literature and interview analysis, the following themesemerged as the main factors affecting perceptions and therefore use ofWikipedia:

VERACITY

I mean, who’s to say it’s correct? (Participant E)

The fact that the veracity of Wikipedia is of serious concern for academicswas reflected in both the literature and the interviews. Research by Cheninto the use of Wikipedia in higher education among 200 American lecturersrevealed that the majority would not use it for teaching and learning dueto concerns of accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness. Participants ratedWikipedia lower in quality than other online resources, and they rarely al-lowed students to use it (Chen 362–70).

Given its vast size and open nature, there can be a lack of consistencyregarding the standard of articles, leading to concerns about the level ofmisinformation and deliberate article vandalism (West and Williamson 269;Denning et al. 152; Gorman 274–75). While studies have shown that al-most half of the vandalism is repaired “almost immediately,” there are stillhundreds of thousands of articles containing errors (Priedhorsky et al. 265).

The most prominent theme to emerge from the interviews with re-gards to their caution toward Wikipedia was that of veracity. Four of theinterviewees (B, C, D, and E) were concerned that the fluid nature ofknowledge of Wikipedia made it vulnerable to misinformation; B and Dadding that a definitive answer may never be reached due to the contin-ually evolving consensus forming process. The perceived lack of overallcontrol or management of the editorial process was noted by ParticipantsC and E; both feeling that knowledge lacks veracity if it is not chaired andmanaged.

All of the interviewees were concerned about the difficulty of knowingif an article is “correct,” particularly without any background knowledge ofthe subject area, and the potential anonymity of contributors. Anonymity wasof most concern to Participants C and E, Participant C noting:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

42 G. Bayliss

How do you find a legitimacy? You identify it by the credentials of theperson that’s delivering it. So if you’ve got an anonymous source, andyou’ve got no idea where its coming from, then I would dismiss it, and Ithink you’d be right to dismiss it.

For Participants A, B, and D, the anonymity of sources raised uncom-fortable questions; they noted the difficulty of source evaluation, but alsothe potential arrogance in dismissing a source that lacks obvious credentials.

Despite the criticisms noted in the literature and interviews, a substantialamount of research into the veracity of articles has found that Wikipedia’sbreadth, currency, accessibility, diversity, and level of accuracy has createdan encyclopedia of reasonable quality, comparable with that of other ency-clopedias (West and Williamson 269; Fallis 1666–71; Giles 900–01; Chesneyn. pag.; Huvila n. pag.).

Although providing a number of caveats, all of the interviewees foundsome level of veracity in Wikipedia, seeing it as capable of providing a goodstarting point for research. Only Participant D went further, noting its abilityto be updated immediately allowing information to be kept up-to-date, farmore so than in the academic peer-review system.

PHILOSOPHICAL TENSIONS

Why would an academic go in there and produce material for free, fornothing, I mean what are they doing? (Participant C)

Another theme highlighted in the research was the ‘philosophical ten-sions’ between the closed nature of academia and the university, and thedemocratic nature of Wikipedia. This is because open source collaborativeknowledge creation poses a direct challenge to traditional academic knowl-edge production and scholarly standards, an issue highlighted in the 2007JISC report into the implications of Web 2.0 for education (P. Anderson 15).

This attitude is explored by Eijkman, who argues that the funda-mental cause of opposition to Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 use is thatis allows for the democratization of knowledge and “disrupts traditionalpower-knowledge arrangements,” removing control from academics and thetraditional peer-review system (“Academics” 174). This has implications forthe competitive academic community and the role that publishing in peer-reviewed commercial journals, plays in reputation and “expertise” buildingand promotion (O’Sullivan 117–18; Donlan 281; Read 33). P. Anderson’s JISCreport into the implications of Web 2.0 for education adds that the growth inuser generated content and the “rise of the amateur,” “who has the authorityto “say” and “know,” is surely set to be a challenge within education (15).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 9: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 43

The responses of three of the interviewees highlight this “philosophicaltension.” Participants B, C, and E, although less strongly in Participant B’scase, are in agreement regarding the lack of veracity in Wikipedia in compar-ison with the academic peer-review model. Both C and E wanted to adjustthe Wikipedia model, fundamentally changing its nature to align it with theacademic peer-review process which they believed was the only legitimatemethod of assessing credibility, Participant E noting: “if we don’t have that,then what is there?” In contrast, Participant D noted the “danger” of aca-demics saying that something is not “valid until an academic has rewritten itand published it in a journal.”

These views were reinforced in their responses to the open natureof Wikipedia. In keeping with its ethos of open collaboration, commu-nity, and sharing, Wikipedia employs the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike licence which allows free access to all Wikipedia content forcopying and redistribution if the resulting product is also licensed underthe same terms, and a citation is made to the article from which the in-formation originated (“Wikipedia: Consensus” n. pag.). A range of opinionswere aired by the interviewees, the greatest disparity being seen betweenParticipants C and D. Participant C refusing to “altruistically [be] handingover my research to an open source for the sake of it” and Participant Dbeing “100% behind it being released and free for everybody . . . [because]If you don’t want your research out there and being read, and shared, andhaving an impact on society, then I’d kind of question why you were doingit.” The other three interviewees were not against free access to informa-tion, but were concerned about intellectual property rights and failure toattribute.

Eijkman’s research into the “philosophical tensions” also noted ahypocrisy—that despite an “overall cautiousness,” and a number of aca-demics wanting the removal of open source collaboration on the encyclope-dia, the majority of those surveyed were actually regular users of Wikipedia.Participants A and B picked up on this point, Participant A saying: “I guessit’s double standards really to tell our students not to use Wikipedia intheir academic work, and where do we go, or where do I go anyway?. . .Wikipedia.”

There are a growing number of academics and librarians who takeissue with the Web 1.0 viewpoint, and see it as the duty of the universityto equip students with the skills to work with all information sources, notjust those produced through traditional academic knowledge constructionprocesses, particularly as the digital, open source world is the contemporarystudents’ world (Johnson 98; Badke 49–50; Jaschik; Delanty 101–12). All ofthe interviewees believed the ability to use Web 2.0 was an important skillfor students, and saw it as the responsibility of the university, the universitylibrarians, and individual lecturers, to train students. For example, ParticipantD, commenting on digital literacy, said:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 10: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

44 G. Bayliss

If I’m perfectly blunt about it, you are by all definitions illiterate, (if)you’re not able to communicate using platforms of communication beingused by today’s contemporary society.

IMPLICATIONS OF HARNESSING THE “WISDOM OF CROWDS”

They might (outperform the expert), but that will be chance. (ParticipantB)

The open and collaborative nature of Wikipedia has enabled it to be-come the world’s largest encyclopedia (Ayers, Matthews, and Yates 46).This process of harnessing the “wisdom of crowd” is seen by some as itsstrongest quality, yet by others as its fundamental weakness (Wannemacher80–81). The high epistemic value is seen to reside in the collaborative na-ture and community ethos of participants, and the open discussion forums,article discussion pages, and page histories creating a dynamic and evolvingknowledge process where contributors work toward a common democraticconsensus and a high quality article (Rand 929; O’Sullivan 93–103). Researchhas found that the greater the number of editors involved in the productionof an article, the higher its quality rating. The high number of volunteers hasalso led to a greater level of currency, depth, speed and comprehensivenessthan would be possible in a traditional encyclopedia, be it print or online(C. Anderson 71–73; Kittur and Kraut). The Web 2.0 community feel thatWeb 2.0 technologies are particularly suited to Surowiecki’s theory of the“wisdom of crowds” and cite the rise in the crowd-sourcing phenomenon asproof as its potential (Howe).

Critics cite the volatility and lack of security inherent in allowing anyoneto edit an article and the speed and ease at which editing can take place(Denning et al. 152; Shull and McCann 711). They also express concernsthat collaboration can lead to “social loafing” and “groupthink” (West andWilliamson 268).

Only two of the interviewees, Participants A and D, were comfortablewith the theory of the “Wisdom of crowds,” agreeing with Surowiecki that“under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and areoften smarter than the smartest people in them” (xiii). The other three inter-viewees expressed concerns about the potential quality of work producedby the crowd: the danger of the crowd getting it wrong (Participant C); thepotentially “totally negative aspect” of crowd behavior (Participant E); andthe possibility of ‘groupthink’ (Participant B). Participant B was the onlyone of these three to express some doubt, and note a potential “intellectualarrogance” in his viewpoint.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 11: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 45

WIKIPEDIA CREATES “LAZY STUDENTS”

It’s not because Wikipedia might not be a good source of information,it’s because it’s lazy. (Participant B)

Wikipedia is also criticized by academics for leading to “lazy” researchmethods (Kolowich “Wikipedia Aims Higher”). Two of the interviewees,Participants B and E, directly mentioned “laziness” as a concern regarding theuse of Wikipedia by students, and the effect that the ease of finding resourcesis having on the nature of learning, preventing students from spending timelooking at a wider range of sources and experiencing a deeper level oflearning. Participant E commented:

in some ways I think students use it because they’re lazy, so they just gothere and type in the term and just use that as a definition without doingany further research.

UNDERSTANDING OF WIKIPEDIA PROCESSES AND POLICIES

Training would be useful. . . Definitely, I mean it would increase myknowledge in terms of perhaps how we can use that information morecredibly. (Participant E)

Research by Chen found that those members of teaching staff that diduse Wikipedia for teaching and learning were “most likely” to already bemembers of the Wikipedia Community have an understanding of the articleproduction and editing process, and have more general Internet researchexperience (370). Shull and McCann also found a lack of understandingabout the processes and policies of Wikipedia among teaching staff reluctantto use Wikipedia, and a failure to assist students in evaluating articles (714).

In order to ascertain the level of understanding of how Wikipedia works,the interviewees were asked to explain their understanding of the editingprocess and then to clarify if they were aware of the following: discussionpages; the article rating system; and how articles are monitored. Chart 1.0shows that while there was a good basic understanding of the editing pro-cess, awareness of the other elements was mixed. While three of them wereaware of the discussion and history pages (Participants B, C, and D), onlyone (Participant D) had more than a basic understanding of these processes.(see Figure 1).

Research into the use of Wikipedia by students highlights the need forHEIs and academic librarians to develop evaluation guidance and policiesfor the use of Wikipedia in order to equip them with the skills to operatein a Web 2.0 world (Shull and McCann 714; Head and Eisenberg; Lim 2200;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 12: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

46 G. Bayliss

FIGURE 1 Awareness of Wikipedia processes.

Menchen-Trevino and Hargittai 38). A lack of understanding of Wikipedia’sprocesses and policies has been shown to undermine their ability to evaluatethe source, because traditional information literacy source evaluation tech-niques, with their focus on credibility of author and publisher, are unsuitedto such sources (Menchen-Trevino and Hargittai 42).

Review of the institutional documentation and communication with aca-demic librarians at the Business School found that Library Staff do not ap-proach the topic of Wikipedia during their information literacy teachingsessions, or in guidance materials. If asked by students, they would ad-vise “its competence should be assessed using the normal processes forevaluating Internet resources” (Library Staff). This evaluation training andadvice falls into the traditional category and does not provide assistancewith the evaluation of Wikipedia. For example, the Internet resources eval-uation guidelines say “Omit rather than include material of dubious origin”(Library Service) This automatically excludes Wikipedia’s often anonymouscontributors. Without training in Wikipedia, and therefore without knowl-edge of editing and monitoring processes, they are also unable to followother guidelines such as “Is there an editorial policy on the selection ofcontent?” (Library Service).

All of the interviewees provided further instruction to their students ontraditional source evaluation, and four of them approached Web 2.0 sources,although only those sources with identifiable authors, for example, blogs(Participants A, B, C, and D), or where sources have been highly tagged onbookmarking services (Participant D). Participants A and C referred studentsto the same guidance that they used for traditional sources. Person A:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 13: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 47

in theory you can apply that framework, these criteria, to any pieceof information or source, and that could include, and should include,Wikipedia.

Only Participants B and D recognized the unsuitability of Web 1.0 eval-uation criteria, however, neither had developed a criteria suitable for theencyclopedia. Participant D highlighted the challenge Web 2.0 evaluationposed:

how do you verify how good this is, how strong this information is, howvalid this information is? Rather than just going ‘who’s the publisher,that’s quite good’. . . That’s obviously a challenge for students, it’s also achallenge if you are trying to mark something, or supervise something.

All of the interviewees wanted further guidance from the universitylibrarians about the use and evaluation of Web 2.0 sources so that they werebetter able to prepare their students, and do so in a consistent manner.

CYNICISM OF WIKIPEDIA

. . . this is a commercial business; it wants to make money. (Participant C)

One theme arising from the interviews that did not emerge during theliterature review was that of a cynicism toward Wikipedia as an organiza-tion, and its dominance on the Internet. Participant B found its dominance“a bit scary” and Participant C was cynical of what he saw as an attemptby Wikipedia to look for a false legitimacy through association with aca-demic institutions, for example in their “Wikipedia on Campus” campaign.The campaign also caused concerns for Participant B who was dubiousof the “politics and motivation behind all this.” Participant E, unaware ofWikipedia’s not-for-profit status, was concerned about “what role they wantto play,” believing that “they are obviously doing it from a business perspec-tive.”

CONSISTENCY

With the proliferation of these sources and technologies, that creates anissue for us in terms of consistency. (Participant C)

A further theme to emerge from the interviews, but not the literature,was the issue of consistency. Participant C, who had practical experienceworking with members of teaching staff to encourage and support the useof the university’s own suite of Web 2.0 applications, was the most concernedabout the implications of inconsistency in applications used, and approachtaken, on the “student experience.” He had found that the use of external

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 14: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

48 G. Bayliss

applications led to confusion among students, and therefore advised thatteaching staff use only the university suite.

Although two of the interviewees were less convinced of this need forconsistency (Participants B and D), all of them were aware of a strong driveby the institution toward consistency, and only one, Participant D, madeuse of external applications. The institutional focus on consistency couldtherefore be providing a further reason for the cautionary attitude towardusing Wikipedia with students.

The quality of the university suite, in particular the wiki application,caused problems for Participants A and B (and implied problems in the caseof Participant D), Participant B noting he wanted a “wiki like Wikipedia,” con-sistent with what he and his students were already familiar with, suggestingthat consistency with already established, successful, external applicationscould prove more beneficial for staff and students.

Use of Wikipedia

Ok, so then you might ask, well, do you use Wikipedia? And the answeris yes, when I want to check something . . . to remind me. (Participant B)

Analysis of perceptions toward Wikipedia found a range of attitudes,with all interviewees expressing a level of caution toward its use. This cautionis reflected in their use of Wikipedia (Table 3) and attitudes toward futurepotential use of Wikipedia (Table 4).

Without a formal institutional policy on the use of Wikipedia, intervie-wees were free to implement their own policies regarding its use in the learn-ing process, and by students. In their advice to students regarding its use, allof the interviewees provided only basic assistance, recommending that it beused purely as a starting point for research, for reasons of credibility (Partic-ipants A, B, C, and E), and because it is an encyclopedia (Participant D).This correlates with the advice given by Wikipedia (“Wikipedia: CitingWikipedia”).

TABLE 3 Wikipedia use

Participants

A B C D E

Used Wikipedia in Personal life√ √ √ √ √

Used Wikipedia in professional, non-teaching role√ √ √ √

✗Contributed to Wikipedia in a positive manner ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗

Legend:√

yes; ✗ no.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 15: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 49

TABLE 4 Attitudes toward potential Wikipedia use

Participants

Opinion of: A B C D E

Wikipedia in the learning process

Wikipedia Projects in curriculum

“Wikipedia on Campus”

Legend: Largely positive; positive, but with a number of caveats; largely negative.

There are a growing number of examples of universities using WikipediaProjects as a teaching and learning tool with students (“Wikipedia: Schooland University Projects” ). Studies have highlighted the potential benefits:developing research; editing; reflection; critical review; debating; evaluation;web-editing; writing and “neutral point of view” skills; experiencing collab-orative learning; and experiencing working in a “real-world environment”(Wannemacher 87–88; Kolowich “Wikipedia for Credit”). Only one inter-viewee, Participant D, was aware that some universities were incorporating“Wikipedia Projects” into their curriculum. Upon learning of the WikipediaProjects and considering its potential benefits, all of the interviewees foundsome merit in the concept: for its capability to teach information literacy andcollaboration skills (A); to enhance “specific skills” (B); to teach evaluationskills (C); to improve writing (E); and “because it could have a huge amountof benefits” (D). All of the interviewees saw the benefit of students partici-pating in editing apart from Participant C who felt it “adds something that it(Wikipedia) doesn’t necessarily deserve.”

This positivity was not reflected in all of their opinions of Wikipediaon Campus, with Participants A and D being the only positive respondentsto the idea of a Wikipedia on Campus project at the Business School. Theconcept of Wikipedia increasing its presence in universities, and encouragingstudents and lecturers to use and edit the encyclopedia, was seen in a cynicaland concerned light by Participants B, C, and E. Person C:

they are looking for legitimacy, and they are looking to try and enhancethat legitimacy where they see it currently resting, and that’s obviouslywithin universities.

DISCUSSION

Research analysis found a range of attitudes toward the use of Wikipedia inhigher education, with all interviewees expressing a level of caution regard-ing its use. A summary of attitudes can be seen in Table 5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 16: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

50 G. Bayliss

TABLE 5 Overview of attitudes

Opinions of: A B C D E

Collaborative teaching and learning

Collaborative learning using Web 2.0 (within Academia)

“Wisdom of the crowd”

Knowledge produced out with academia

Open and free access to knowledge

Wikipedia in the learning process

Incorporating Wikipedia projects into the curriculum

Involvement in the “Wikipedia on Campus” campaign

Legend: Largely positive; positive, but with a number of caveats; largely negative.

Following analysis of the themes highlighted in the research it is con-cluded that the reasons for the cautionary attitude shown toward Wikipedia,can be encapsulated into the following three points:

(1) A lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies.(2) A negative attitude toward collaborative knowledge production occurring

outside academia.(3) The perceived detrimental effects of inconsistency relating to the use of

Web 2.0 applications outside the university suite.

These three points will need to be addressed by the case study institutionif they are to capitalize on the potential benefits of using Wikipedia in thelearning process.

Understanding

Lack of understanding can be linked to five of the seven themes highlightedin the research analysis: concerns of veracity; the implication of harnessingthe “wisdom of the crowd”; the belief that Wikipedia creates lazy students;cynicism of the organization and its aims; and the lack of understanding ofprocesses and policies which made Wikipedia difficult to evaluate. Under-standing of Wikipedia process and policies among interviewees was basic,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 17: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 51

even among those with greater Web 2.0 experience. As noted in the litera-ture, a link has been made between the understanding of Wikipedia and itsuse by academics (Chen 370; Shull and McCann 713).

All of the interviewees noted the difficulty in evaluating Wikipedia ar-ticles and their veracity. Their lack of understanding of Wikipedia policiesand processes was reflected in the evaluation criteria they used, criteria thatwere not suited to the user generated content of Web 2.0. It was also re-flected in their concerns of the “wisdom of the crowd.” Without knowledgeof Wikipedia’s own peer-review editing processes, the way in which editorscollaborate to review, amend, and update articles, interviewees could notevaluate how any one article was created, and to what level the rules andprocesses were followed. If evaluated thoroughly, using criteria specific tothe encyclopedia, another concern, that Wikipedia creates lazy students,would also be somewhat negated.

Lack of understanding of Wikipedia as an organization was reflected inthe attitudes of Participants B, C, and E in the cynicism that they expressedtoward the organization, in particular, its Wikipedia on Campus campaign.For them, this provided a further reason for caution. This level of cynicismreflected a lack of knowledge of the campaign, and also the organizationsoverall aims, and the policies and monitoring processes put in place to meetthem.

Analysis of the research suggests that an increased understanding of thepotential benefits of Wikipedia could improve opinions toward its use in thelearning process. Participant D had the greatest understanding of Wikipediaand the most positive opinion of Wikipedia as an entity, and for its potentialrole in the learning process, and Participant A had found that his opinionof Wikipedia had “shifted” to being more positive after a recent “finding outjourney.” In addition, there were the positive responses from all intervieweesupon learning of the possibility of incorporating Wikipedia projects into thecurriculum. This aligns with the literature review which found that thosewith the greatest understanding of Wikipedia used it the most.

Attitudes Toward Knowledge Production

Despite their positive opinions and experience of collaborative knowledgeproduction within teaching and learning (both face-to-face and using Web2.0 applications), analysis of interviewee attitudes toward Wikipedia showedstrong concerns about collaborative knowledge production when it occursoutside the traditional bounds of academia. Whilst holding the opinion thatlegitimate knowledge production is only that produced and peer- reviewedwithin the academic system, Wikipedia cannot be seen as a legitimate sourceof knowledge production. This viewpoint was seen throughout the inter-views in relation to issues surrounding philosophical tensions, concernsabout veracity, and the value of the wisdom of the crowd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 18: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

52 G. Bayliss

Only one interviewee, Participant D, took a positive view of knowl-edge produced in both situations. He was also the only interviewee to takea largely positive view of the “‘democratization of knowledge.” His ethoswas the most compatible with the “wiki philosophy,” that of open and freecollaboration, and a community of sharing. For the other four interviewees,their attitude toward the legitimacy of knowledge production led to a re-luctance toward Wikipedia, and a cautionary approach to its use in highereducation. This tallies with the literature which highlights the challenge thatthe Wikipedia model poses to universities and academics, and the caution-ary attitude shown by the majority toward a move away from the model ofuniversity as “gatekeeper” (Eijkman “Academics” 181).

Consistency

While not appearing in the literature as a reason for the cautionary attitudetoward Wikipedia, the issue of consistency emerged as an important themein the case study interviews. Three of the interviewees (Participants A, C, andE) perceived there to be a potential detrimental effect on student experienceif a range of university and external Web 2.0 applications were used, and allof the interviewees were aware of a strong drive by the institution towardconsistency of approach and applications used, adding a further reason tobe cautious about using Wikipedia.

CONCLUSION

The aim of this research was to explore the cautionary attitude shown to-ward the use of Wikipedia in the process of learning. While only of a smallscale and exploratory nature, overall, the findings of the interview analysislargely corroborate with the reviewed literature. Two areas emerging fromthe study that were not referred to in the literature were cynicism towardWikipedia, and the issue of consistency. Further investigation is needed tobetter understand the implications of these concerns on the use of Wikipedia,and to assess the level of these concerns outside the case study institu-tion.

The research findings highlighted in the discussion raise a number ofareas that need to be addressed by HEIs if they are to achieve the maxi-mum benefit from Wikipedia and Web 2.0, and produce students able tooperate professionally in the Web 2.0 world, a world which is their contem-porary reality. Whilst points one and three, the lack of understanding and theperceived detrimental effect of inconsistency, do not pose insurmountablebarriers to the use of Wikipedia, point two, regarding the negative atti-tude toward knowledge produced outside of academia, raises more difficult

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 19: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 53

issues. The contrasting attitudes toward collaborative knowledge productionproduced outside academia, and the free and open sharing nature of knowl-edge, reflects the debate found in the reviewed literature. For the majority,Wikipedia’s use of non-experts (who are often anonymous), and its free andopen nature, makes it, as O’Sullivan comments, “alien to our cultural tradi-tion” (1). Changing this will require the development of a new ethos andattitude toward the concept of knowledge production, and open and freeinformation sources.

Recommendations for HEIs

In response to the research study, the following recommendations are madeto improve perceptions and understanding of Wikipedia to enable informeduse of the resource for knowledge construction and retrieval:

• Increase understanding of Wikipedia, its policies and processes.• Increase understanding of the nature of open and free collaboratively pro-

duced knowledge.• Make available Wikipedia guidance and evaluation criteria to students and

teaching staff.

Areas for Further Study

The following areas, outside the scope of this study, could benefit fromfurther research:

• Perceptions, use and understanding of Wikipedia in other UK HEIs.• The impact of user education on staff and student perceptions, use, and

understanding of Wikipedia.• The impact of the issue of consistency with regards to which Web 2.0

applications teaching staff use, or are allowed to use, with students.

REFERENCES

Alavi, Maryam, and Donna Dufner. “Technology-Mediated Collaborative Learning:A Research Perspective.” Learning Together Online: Research on AsynchronousLearning Networks Ed. S.R. Hiltz, and R. Goldman. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005.183–206.

Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand.London, UK: Random House, 2007. Print.

Anderson, Paul. “What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implications for Educa-tion.” Ed. Mark Hepworth et al. Technology Feb.1 (2007): 1–64. Web. 20 Mar.2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 20: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

54 G. Bayliss

Ayers, Pheobe, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates. How Wikipedia Works and HowYou Can Be a Part of It. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press, 2008. Print.

Badke, William. “What to do with Wikipedia.” Online 32.2 (2008): 48–50. Web 23Feb. 2011.

Chen, Hsin-liang. “The Perspectives of Higher Education Faculty on Wikipedia.” TheElectronic Library 28.3 (2010): 361–373. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.

Chesney, Thomas. An Empirical Examination of Wikipedia’s Credibility. First Monday11.11 (2006): n. pag. Web. 23 July 2011.

Delanty, Gerard. Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society.Buckingham, UK: OUP, 2001. Print.

Denning, Peter, et al. “Wikipedia Risks.” Communications of the ACM 48.12 (2005):152. Web. 22 Apr. 2011.

Donlan, Rebecca. “From the Editor: Wikipedia and the Digital Divide.” Journal ofInterlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 20.5 (2010): 281–83.Web. 4 Mar. 2011.

Ebrary. 2008 global student e-book survey. Palo Alto, CA: Ebrary, 2008. Web. 14 Mar.2011.

Eijkman, Henk. “Web 2.0 as a Non-Foundational Network-Centric LearningSpace.” Campus-Wide Information Services 25.2 (2008): 93–104. Web. 18 Mar.2011.

Eijkman, Henk. “Academics and Wikipedia: Reframing Web 2.0+ as a disruptor ofTraditional Academic Power-Knowledge Arrangements.” Campus-Wide Infor-mation Services 27.3 (2010): 173–85. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

Fallis, Don. “Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.” Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science and Technology 59.10 (2008): 166274. Web. 17 Mar.2011.

Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” Nature 438.15 (2005): 900–01.Web. 22 Mar. 2011.

Gorman, G.E. “A Tale of Information Ethics and Encyclopedias; or, is Wikipedia JustAnother Internet Scam?” Online Information Review 31.3 (2007): 273–76. Web.14 Apr. 2011.

Head, Alison J. and Michael B. Eisenberg. “How Today’s College Students UseWikipedia for Course-Related Research.” First Monday 15.3 (2010): n. pag. Web.20 Feb. 2011.

Howe, Jeff. “The Rise of Crowdsourcing.” Wired. Wired, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2011.Huvila, Isto. “Where Does the Information Come From? Information Source Use

Patterns in Wikipedia.” Information Research 15.3 (2010): n. pag. Web. 23 July2011.

Jaschik, Scott. “A Stand Against Wikipedia.” Inside HigherEd 26 Jan. (2007). Web. 13July 2011.

Johnson, Doug. “Head for the Edge: Evaluating Collectively Created Information.”Library Media Connection 25.4 (2007): 98. Web. 14 May 2011.

Kittur, Aniket, and Robert Kraut. Harnessing the Wisdom of Crowds in Wikipedia:Quality Through Coordination. Proc. of CSCW ‘08 ACM Conf., Nov. 2008. SanDiego, CA: ACM, 2008. Web. 14 May 2011.

Kolowich, Steve. “Wikipedia for Credit.” Inside HigherEd, 7 Sept. (2010). Web. 13July 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 21: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 55

Kolowich, Steve. “Wikipedia Aims Higher.” Inside HigherEd. Inside HigherEd, 11July 2011. Web. 12 July 2011.

Library Service. Evaluating Web Pages. n.d. PDF file.Library Staff. Message to the author. 4 July 2011. Email.Lim, Sook. “How and Why Do College Students Use Wikipedia?” Journal of the Amer-

ican Society for Information Science and Technology 60.11 (2009): 2189–02.Web. 3 Mar. 2011.

Menchen-Trevino, Ericka, and Eszter Hargittai. “Young Adults’ Credibility Assessmentof Wikipedia.” Information, Communication & Society 14.1 (2010): 24–51. Web.14 Mar. 2011.

O’Sullivan, Dan. Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice? Farnham, UK: Ashgate,2009. Print.

Panitz, Ted. “Deliberations: a Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning.”Deliberations. London Metropolitan U., 1996. Web. 23 June 2011.

Priedhorsky, Reid et al Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia. Proc.Of GROUP 2007 International ACM Conf., Nov. 2007. New York: ACM, 2007.Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Rand, Angela D. “Mediating at the Student-Wikipedia Intersection.” Journal of LibraryAdministration 50.7 (2010): 923–32. Web. 19 May 2011.

Read, Brock. “Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?” The Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation 53.10 (2006): 31–35. Web. 23 May 2011.

Shull, Christine M., and Dana K. McCann. “The Revolution of Using CollaborativeSources in Higher Education.” Issues in Information Systems 11.1 (2010): 711–14.Web. 6 June 2011.

Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few.London, UK: Abacus, 2005. Print.

Wannemacher, Klaus. “Experiences and Perspectives of Wikipedia Use in Higher Ed-ucation.” International Journal of Management in Education 5.1 (2011): 79–92.Web. 12 June 2011.

West, Kathy, and Janet Williamson. “Wikipedia: Friend or Foe?” Reference ServicesReview 37.3 (2009): 260–271.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Wikipedia: Citing Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclo-pedia. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2011.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Wikipedia: Consensus.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 24 July 2011.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Wikipedia: School and University Projects.” Wikipedia, theFree Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 14 July 2011.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia,the Free Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 22: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

56 G. Bayliss

APPENDIX. Interview Questions

Section 1: Attitudes Towards Collaborative Teaching and Learning.

(1) What subject area do you teach?• How long have you been teaching this particular subject?• Is this across all undergraduate year-groups?• What involvement do you have with blended learning?

(2) What teaching approaches do you use with undergraduates?• Do you have a preferred teaching approach?• Do you have to follow a prescribed departmental teaching approach?• Is there a departmental policy on suggested approaches?

(3) Do you incorporate any collaborative learning techniques into yourteaching?• Can you give me an example?• Could you describe what happens, and the nature of your role in this

process?• Does collaborative learning occur in both online and face-to-face el-

ements of blended learning? Is it student to student, and/or student/instructor?

• Have you found collaborative learning successful?(4) Do you put an end date on a collaborative exercise, or is it allowed to

continually evolve?(5) What are your opinions of collaborative learning?

Section 2: Perceptions, use, and Understanding of Web 2.0 Contentand Technologies.

(1) Do Web 2.0 content technologies (for example blogs, social media andonline forums) play a role in your personal or professional life, excludingyour teaching role?• Which technologies?• What do you use it for?• Do you contribute on any of these platforms?

(2) Which Web 2.0 content technologies do you use with your students?• What for?• How would you evaluate their use?• Have you accessed any of the university support for using Web 2.0

technologies?(3) Do you use any Web 2.0 collaborative content encyclopedias?

• Why/ why not?• What do you used it/them for?• Have you ever contributed to an open access encyclopedia?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 23: Exploring the Cautionary Attitude Toward Wikipedia in Higher Education: Implications for Higher Education Institutions

Higher Education and Attitudes Toward Wikipedia 57

(4) How do you feel about the open access nature of Web 2.0 content?(5) Can you describe to me your understanding of how Wikipedia works?(6) What is your opinion of Wikipedia?

Section 3: Attitudes Towards the use of Wikipedia in the LearningProcess.

(1) Have you used Wikipedia with your students?• Can you describe what you did?• How would you evaluate its success?

Or• Have you considered using Wikipedia in the learning process?• What prevents you from doing so?

(2) Do you express an opinion to your students about the use of Wikipedia?• Do you allow the use of Wikipedia/ traditional encyclopedias/ Web

2.0 content by students?(3) Do you give students advice on the evaluation of Web 2.0 sources like

Wikipedia?• What do you tell them?• Would you like guidance from the university on the use of Web 2.0

sources like Wikipedia?(4) Whose responsibility do you think it is to teach students how to operate,

professionally and academically, in a Web 2.0 world?(5) A number of universities are now incorporating Wikipedia projects into

their coursework to develop research and information literacy skills.• What are your opinions on this?• Would you consider using such an approach?

(6) Are you aware of the ‘Wikipedia on Campus’ project?• Would you be interested in being involved with this on campus?

(7) What is your response to the following quote about the ‘wisdomof crowds’: “No one, you might say, knows more than everyone”(Surowiecki).

(8) How would you describe your role in relation to your students?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

eesi

de]

at 0

8:50

08

Oct

ober

201

4