Seriously Can We End This Debate Already
Yesterday @SybilV posted a comment via Twitter during a library orientation for her class:
An innocent enough of a gesture one could assume. What I took Sybil’s point to be, was that Britannica is not a good scholarly source, and that the library should be encouraging other/more appropriate research practices (like, you know using scholarly sources, and judging credibility and bias). But what also struck me about this was the odd moment when librarians are encouraging students to use the encyclopedia as a source. And, perhaps I read too much into this, but I think the librarians gesture comes as a correction to Wikipedia, i.e. the subtext here is “Don’t use Wikipedia use Britannica.” This might be my bias, or my way of reading things, so fair enough I didn’t respond to Sybil’s tweet. But, apparently Britannica has a Twitter account, and the person who manages the account noticed Sybil’s tweet and decided to respond:
Shocked to see that Britannica was on Twitter I couldn’t resist and posted the following:
Well needless to say it was all downhill (or shits and giggles depending on your perspective) from there. I won’t recount the blow, by blow, mainly cause it gets really long, and the person who Tweets from @Britannica obviously feels passionate about defending Britannica, and at one point posted nine straight tweets defending the appropriateness of Britannica as a scholarly source.
A few notes might be worth making at this point: 1. I am not speaking for @SybilV here, these are my opinions, and I have a sense that my tone if not also my stance is more radical/ contentious than hers. 2. I have no idea if the account @Britannica is an official Britannica Twitter account. I looked at the Britannica page and couldn’t find it listed. So, the account might just be a Britannica fan, or an employee who unofficially Tweets from that account. I don’t know, but I think we can take the arguments that @Britannica makes as indicative of those who champion this encyclopedia and its format.
It seems to me that with all the tweets sent back and forth, with others in the Twitterverse adding to the discussion, the central issue was “What is the appropriate use/role for Britannica in relation to society and specifically academia?”
So here’s the thing: 1. It has none. 2. This is because of Wikipedia.
Don’t get me wrong I am not disparaging Britannica, not really. It had a role, and generally speaking it served it well, but:
Yes, Britannica is a pretty good secondary source. It has a lot of advantages as a secondary source. Articles are fairly thorough, contain citations, and are more or less accurate, but as a secondary source it doesn’t even come close to the value of something like Wikipedia. Thirty years ago, heck even ten years ago, Britannica was arguably the best secondary source around. If you wanted to get a quick overview of a specific subject Britannica was a good place to start, a good portal to gaining deep knowledge about a subject.
In a world of dead-tree based knowledge the central authority, hierarchically controlled way of organizing, was a good thing. When you only have so many pages, you can’t reprint frequently, and distribution is expensive, these are good decisions. But in a digital networked information structure these are not.
What you want from a secondary source is a good introduction to a concept, that is mostly reliable, up-to-date, entries for as many topics as possible, connections to where to go to learn more, and easy and ubiquitous (as possible) access. A secondary source is not an in depth analysis which upon reading one is suddenly an expert on said entry or topic, it’s not designed to be. It is just a good overview. No secondary source is going to be completely accurate, or engage in the level of detail and nuance which we want from students, or that is required to fully “know” about a subject.
This is why the Wikipedia banning by schools and professors has always struck me as a particularly stupid policy. The issue is not that Wikipedia is or is not reliable and thus should be banned in academic environments, rather the issue is that Wikipedia is a secondary source and thus should not be treated as a primary one. But, this also holds true for Britannica. Any syllabus which contains language about banning Wikipedia misses this point. Ban secondary sources from student work, not Wikipedia in particular as this confuses the issue. This doesn’t mean that students shouldn’t use secondary sources, indeed they should they are great ways to begin to learn about a subject. It just means they should not cite secondary sources, they should always look for primary ones, and that they should never take Wikipedia or Britannica as the final word on a subject. I don’t recall a single syllabus from my college days (pre-Wikipedia) that said “do not use Britannica as a source for your papers, doing so will result in failing the assignment.” Seriously, professors explained to us what reference books were for, and how to correctly use them.
Several semesters ago I wrote a piece defending Wikipedia and arguing that it was irresponsible to not teach students about how to use Wikipedia. I won’t rehash those arguments here, but I will reference one objection made in the comments of this article, which I often hear when I talk about Wikipedia:
MY guess is that the author wouldn’t want his doctor to base his latest surgery on a Wikipedia article.
Of course not, don’t be stupid, I wouldn’t want my doctor to be educated by Wikipedia, but I wouldn’t want my doctor to be educated by Britannica either. The role of Wikipedia isn’t to train heart surgeons how to perform a bypass, nor is it the role of Britannica, that is not the function of these objects. To hold Wikipedia to this standard is more than a bit ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn’t strive to be an object that teaches doctors how to operate (although it seems that Britannica might be trying to claim this ground).
We could argue about the accuracy of Wikipedia, although studies show that it is as accurate as Britannica, or about the policy that “any one can edit,” at least with Wikipedia I can view the editing history, or we could argue about the problems on Wikipedia, of which there are many (bland prose, serious debates between inclusionists and deletionist, its Western-English bias, an increasing bureaucratic control structure, among others). But what really isn’t arguable at this point is that as a broad overview of knowledge, a good place to start an inquiry, Wikipedia is a killer app.
When it comes to functioning as a secondary source, a reference guide, Wikipedia has substantial advantages over any prior encyclopedia model. In the same way that Britannica’s model of “get experts in a field to write specific articles” was a vast improvement over the prior model “get the smartest person to write the whole encyclopedia,” Wikipedia is a substantial improvement over Britannica. (Sorry folks at Britannica, this is just the way it is. P.S. While you are at it you might want to sell your stock in 8-tracks, newspapers, and scriptoriums.) The breadth of knowledge, its ability to be linked to other knowledge, its cost (free), its up-to-dateness, and its preservation of editorial discussions (it records not only the article but the discussion which produced said article) makes it far more useful. And that doesn’t even begin to address things like how much easier Wikipedia is to use for mash-ups and data extraction, repurposing the information for other reference works.
To illustrate this point I make the following challenge:
I hereby challenge any employee of Britannica to a game of trivial pursuit. You can consult Britannica Online for any question, and I can consult Wikipedia. Want to take bets on who will win? (I’ll even let you have all 15 print editions as well). We could also play “Who Want’s to Be a Millionaire?” of “Jeopardy” if you want.
So, this is the bind that Britannica is caught in. It can market itself as a secondary source: we are a great reference tool. But if it does this, someone can easily point out that Wikipedia is a better secondary source, and free (in other words libraries can spend dwindling resources on other primary materials). Or, it can claim to be a great primary source, a role it simply can’t fulfill. It simply doesn’t have a place anymore, there are better services doing what it did.
Now seriously, can we end this debate already. Instead lets talk to students about how appropriately to use secondary sources, how to understand how encyclopedias function, how all encyclopedias are biased, all knowledge is discursive, and focus on teaching students how to judge credibility and accuracy instead of outsourcing it to people at Britannica.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
i agree with your points. it’s been awhile since i’ve been in undergrad, and i do distinctly remember professors teaching the difference between primary and secondary sources. this was at a time when the internet was just starting, and academics were already cognizant of what is acceptable and not acceptable.
keep up the good work on your blog.
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Not to take anything from your main point, but you (and the Britannica people) might want to check out a definition of what “primary source” actually means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
(No entry, alas, from Britannica online.)
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 am
@Jordan
I don’t see how David is working on a bad definition of “primary source.” Please expand.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I think the definitional issue of what constitutes a “primary source” is something that is not only discipline specific but also depends on the goal and scope of one’s study.
For instance, historians typically treat documents written by the subjects of one’s inquiry at a specific moment (or moments) in the past as primary sources, while the secondary sources would be other scholars’ arguments that draw on primary source materials. So ordinarily historians consider letters, diaries, journals, economic records, newspapers, etc. that came from the period in question as primary sources, while other arguments about that time period written after it occurred by other scholars are secondary sources (e.g. books, scholarly journal articles, etc.)
As a result, sources like Brittanica and Wikipedia are often placed in yet another, (typically lower) echelon of “tertiary” sources, which are distinguished from secondary sources by the fact that they strive for an entirely objective presentation of “facts” (which as Dave pointed out above, is a bias within itself — objectivity is just one of many subjective perspectives). Secondary sources, on the other hand, openly acknowledge the fact that they are making an argument — just read the introduction and the author typically lays out a pretty clear sense of what he or she will be trying to achieve or persuade his or her audience of in the course of the book/article.
However, the issue of the scope of one’s study can quickly turn what is ordinarily considered a secondary source into a primary one (or can turn a tertiary source into a primary one). For instance, if one is studying how textbooks’ presentation of the Civil War has changed from 1945-present then the textbooks become the primary source material of the scholars investigation. Although textbooks are ordinarily considered tertiary (though more are becoming more overtly argumentative), in the hypothetical study above they constitute the key area of investigation and the essential source material. Similarly, encyclopedias of all stripes (Brittanica and Wikipedia) can become primary sources if one wants to study the way in which they construct knowledge of have changed over time.
Ultimately the debate over what constitutes a primary, secondary, or tertiary source is, as Dave made clear, a semi-moot point. We shouldn’t strive to give students a cookie-cutter definition of each and then tell them that certain types of sources are off-limits, but instead we should help them understand the different characteristics of these sources, how to analyze their authorship and credibility, and how to use them appropriately in light of what one wants to study.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I teach Research Methods and Research Project to undergraduate students, and Research Methods and Applied Research to graduate students. I strike through (do not accept) ANY citations of Wikipedia – seen too much on Steven Colbert for me. I do allow them to use (and use it myself) Wikipedia as a jumping off point, but if they tried to cite a story that I discover on Scopes to be false, I’d feel the same way. The rule is “find it on Wikipedia if you must, but verify – and CITE only from the SECOND (more scholarly) source.” What I hope to be doing is encouraging them to start out with a more scholarly source.
I agreed with much of what Nate said, too.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:56 am
@Logan: Encyclopedias like wikipedia or Britannica could definitely be primary sources, but only if you were studying the history of encyclopedia creation or the attitudes of people at the particular time that the encyclopedia was produced (e.g. comparing entries on Russia in a Cold War era encyclopedia with a modern one). I get the impression that’s not the sense in which the term “primary source” is being used here. Instead it seems to mean “more reliable or authoritative source”, when in fact a secondary source can be perfectly reliable or authoritative. (I just read Nate’s post and realize he used a similar example above.)
I think terms like primary or secondary can definitely be discipline-specific and, as I pointed out initially, it’s a small point relative to the overall argument about what researchers should or shouldn’t be citing. But I do think the confusion feeds into the question at hand. The confusion between different types of resources and their relative reliability leads to the “this encyclopedia is better than that one” argument. But they’re both encyclopedias, and most cases (assuming the encyclopedias themselves aren’t the focus of the research) they’re probably starting points that should lead to other resources.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I think people sometimes confuse “primary source” and “secondary source” with “more reliable” and “less reliable”, when in fact the two attributes are largely unrelated. In fact, because a good secondary source cites primary sources, it’s easier to verify the reliability of a secondary source: does the cited primary source match the secondary source’s description of it, or not? Primary sources by their nature have to stand on their own; you can’t just follow citations to find out if the author is lying, misinformed, or otherwise wrong. The only ways to evaluate the reliability of a primary source are by examining internal consistency, or by comparing with other primary sources.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The problem with wikipedia is that as you say “articles are more or less accurate”. Some are great, thorough, well-researched and documented. Others are horrible, replicating popular misconceptions that are 20-30 years out of date, or masquerading opinion and ideology as fact. Unfortunately it takes a specialist in an area, not just a well-meaning team of volunteers, to weed these out.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I can’t believe anyone would disapprove of the value of Wikipedia. The open source movement is taking over, and these dinosaurs need to realize that their time is up.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
In this context (credibility of primary vs secondary sources), cost really should not be one of the criteria. Reason: The goal is to get at the Truth, whatever that may be. So the position, “access to Wikipedia is free but Britannica charges, therefore Wikipedia’s ease of access makes it a more desirable source,” isn’t relevant if the one that costs something to access is more accurate, salient, or better fact checked. If the counter-argument to that is, But Wikipedia’s open-source approach shows the edit history and Britannica’s proprietary approach doesn’t. I’d argue, So what? Displaying the history of edits really doesn’t confirm accurate fact checking (in and of itself), it just shows (potentially) how many people could be wrong about something. The fact that Britannica charges for access also doesn’t make it inherently more accurate but does presumably provide the financial resources to promote accuracy. Either way, the “bottom line” is not relevant to whether one source should be used over another, regardless of whether it’s considered primary or secondary.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:25 am
There is something sad and symbolic about the Encyclopedia Brittanica twitteriing its way into oblivion. One pictures a lone intern in a half-abandoned 19th century office, chewing on cheese curds and slapping the side of his ancient computer to keep it going as he Twitter furiously into the void. Occasionally he blos into his cupped hands to warm his fingers, for they shut off the power to the Brittanica offices months ago…
January 1st, 2010 at 4:15 am
I am very old. In college — the 70s — they did not let us cite any encyclopedias or textbooks. In graduate school — the 80s — dissertations could not cite encyclopedias or manuals. I think they would have allowed a citation from the OED if it were relevant.
This being what I was taught, I have never let my students cite encyclopedias, and so I have never had to ban Wikipedia. I use it, though, and I let them. I also encourage them to contribute to it — some parts of it need help — although none have done that yet. But I would truly take a good Wikipedia entry in lieu of one more paper.
People keep telling me that I’m OK with Wikipedia because I learned how to “do scholarship” before it existed, so I can cut through any B.S. that is there. But I don’t think it is Wikipedia that is corrupting the minds of the youth, I think it’s commercial television, Christian “balanced” news, talk radio, Creation Science, and so on. _Those_ are examples of irresponsibility and distortion.
Wikipedia on the other hand is serious and I think its work-in-progress nature is a GOOD thing. I also don’t mind the occasional wrong entry, the fact that people can write entries on themselves and so on; I think it’s sort of Borges-like and funny; I do appreciate authoritativeness and so on but there are other reference works that have that; I don’t get the anti-Wikipedia craze and I think it’s a phobia, I think it is a cover for some other fear, I am not sure what.