Wiki-what?

For some time, academia had speculated about the credibility of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Thanks to last week's series in the Indiana Daily Student, that debate has arrived full-steam at IU.\nWhile we don't dismiss Wikipedia outright, we do advocate limited use in settings of higher education.\nOne of the consistent ironies of our education system in the United States is that everyone, regardless of grade level, is in constant flux. Skills are taught to students with the future, as well as the present, in mind. Each step of elementary education builds on the next, the ultimate goal being preparation for middle school, high school and beyond. By the time students reach the college level, it is assumed that students will have gained all the necessary tools to pursue more intense academic endeavors. Research, the cornerstone of academia, has little room for the haphazard information-gathering Wikipedia offers. Wikipedia, as far as education goes, is best left to assist with the seventh-grade history assignment on John F. Kennedy, not the 300-level research paper on the French Revolution.\nThere are, of course, caveats to this position. Wikipedia, and other quickly referenced electronic sources, need not be unduly shunned by every person claiming to be of an "educated background." Indeed, there are favorable uses for Wikipedia and the like -- uses that should stay off of one's works cited page. Quickly referencing trivial information of the "tidbit" variety has practical everyday application. We at the editorial board have used Wikipedia in many settings outside of educational assignments. In this, we believe, lies Wikipedia's usefulness. At the very best, the resource should be used in an academic setting only to find links to more established sources of material. \nThe fact that Wikipedia is able to be modified by any user is certainly its most limiting attribute, but it isn't the only one. \nHigher academic research and writing require tools outside the realm of encyclopedic references. Research, whether original or secondary, necessitates the critical analysis of scholarly writing and the acquisition of raw data. Try and cite "Encyclopedia Britannica" or CNN.com as a primary source for your senior or graduate thesis and you'll be sincerely disappointed. Wikipedia carries the same, if not less, standing in such work -- and rightly so.\nRecalling that education builds on itself, it becomes clear why the use of Wikipedia in the college setting is debated. Some professors may allow it for their classes (as an unscientific IDS survey pointed out), but beware the long-term effects. Reliance on such a resource at the freshmen level can cause unwelcome habits down the line, even post-graduation. Does an economist at the Federal Reserve use Wikipedia to report to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke about the Consumer Price Index? We hope not. So too, we hope students will appreciate the difference between in-depth research and recreational trivia-gathering.