When I walked into my freshman Hist120 class, taught by Professor Jeremy Boggs, I hadn’t really known what to expect. Like everyone else in the class I picked a seat and took it, awaiting further instructions from the professor. As he handed out the syllabus and explained to us what the course would be like, most of us were quite a bit shocked to hear that Wikipedia would be our course textbook for the semester. The class displayed a variety of reactions to this news. Wikipedia? Didn’t most professors disapprove of using Wikipedia? Yes, most professors are quick to tell you that Wikipedia does not count as a resource. Because its articles can be written and edited by virtually anyone, it is considered to be an “unreliable” resource. I, however, have always loved Wikipedia and think it is one of the greatest ideas on the internet. You can learn so much from it and teach others as well. My Hist120 class effectively reinforced my love for Wkipedia and taught me a few new things about it as well.
One of our major assignments for the class required us to research a topic of our choice related to history and then post our own Wikipedia entry about it. It was definitely a great experience for me. First of all, just knowing that my Wikipedia article (about the Alaska Statehood Act) was posted in an online encyclopedia for everyone to read and learn from made me so proud. Despite many professors’ and teachers’ discouragement, I know that most students old and young still use and read it, so knowing that I would be a source of knowlege, that I would help so many others to learn more about one little topic makes me feel pretty good, especially being just a student with often too little power and influence in the ability to teach others. I may be just a young student, but I am not an idiot. I may not have a Ph.D. in History but I did my research and I am fairly certain that all the information in my article is true. If it isn’t, well then anyone is free to edit it and correct me. Wikipedia even gives you the option of checking the history of your article to see who edited your article, what they edited, and you can even choose to debate with them as to the validity of what they editied and such. To me, that sounds like a pretty good system. Unlike other sources, this is one that is ever-changing and can ever be updated and changed if anything proves to be untrue. My article has not been changed too many times, except to correct a few typos and minor grammatical errors (mainly adding commas here or there). The fact that it was not meddled with in any minor way I think simply proves the validity of everything I had to say. It was a good article, it was well written, and it was factually correct and intellectually stimulating. I learned quite a few things I hadn’t known about Alaska’s struggle for statehood, and now I can share that knowlege with the public. I think that’s a great and productive method of teacher so props to Professor Boggs on that one!
Generally, having to read weakly articles on Wikipedia opened my eyes a bit as well. I won’t lie, Wikipedia is not perfect. Some Wiki articles that we had to read sounded a bit sketchy and had WAY TOO MANY typos, like they were writeen by a kid or something. This, however, was really rare. Most of the articles were fairly well-written and factually accurate (as far as I could tell, anyway). You could always tell, though, when an article was not reliable. So to be on the safe side, don’t take everything as if it’s a given. Then again you should never do that anyway with ANY resource. Always read multiple sources and compare data because you never know. People are always biased and anyone can make mistakes. A lot of aspects of history, for example, could also be opinionated so you should never only take one person’s view on a subject, regardless of whether or not they hold a Ph.D. Wikipedia is perfect, though, because in a way it is like reading multiple sources at once. After all, it was written and then edited by multiple persons, all of a variety of different classes, races, religions, beliefs, educational levels, etc. Therefore it is probably the most unbiased source you could find! It is democracy in its best form – a diverse country filled with millions of different people, all contributing a bit of themselves, of their knowlege, to make a larger more complete essence of truth. What could be better than that?
Perhaps I am exaggerating a little bit, but I have to say that just because you are not a scholar in a certain subject doesn’t necessarily mean that you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course if you are not sure of something you probably shouldn’t post it online for everyone to read. However, I’d like to think that what I say does have some credibility. The problem with a lot of “scholars” or “experts” is that sometimes they’re so full of themselves that they no longer see the obvious. Too much knowlege can so often corrupt the mind. Even worse is when those “experts” are biased. Becasue of their title or degree people tend to automatically believe everything they have to say, as if just because they said it, it makes it a fact. I have heard many people who claim they are “experts” in a certain field say things that I happened to KNOW for CERTAIN were factually incorrect.
But then again who would listen to me, I’m just a lonely young student – what do I know, right? Wrong. Everyone has their areas of expertise. Everyone knows something that they can teach others. Everyone should have the right to be taken seriously. To learn and to teach, isn’t that what life is all about? I say props to Professor Boggs for being open-minded and realizing that nothing is ever set in stone. Nothing is in black or white – there are always grey areas and even an expert can be proven wrong sometimes. As a professor he understood that, and he understood the worth of the individual and the value of hearing, learning, and understanding other people’s opinions. History is so often viewed through the eyes of the elite, the “experts”, the rulers or leaders. But as the saying goes, what would happen if “the lions wrote history?” Would you get a completely different story? Or perhaps just one told in a slightly different way, through different eyes. It would deffinitely give you a different perspective on things. What Professor Boggs understood is that history is something passed down through the generations. To truly understand what happened so many years ago it is important to understand the people of the time, to read the stories written by your average citizens – people like you or me. History should be written by the people, not the experts, because only then do you really get to the heart of the story; everything else is just politics… So props to Wikipedia for giving more power to the people. What is the fault in listening to facts as told by your fellow citizens without having a bias of who they are in your mind? I don’t see any, and I don’t think others should either. You could learn a lot from Wikipedia, so don’t toss aside such a valuable resource based on misconceptions that it is “unreliable”. It isn’t any more unreliable than any other source out there, so USE IT!
P.S. Thanks, Professor Boggs, for everything!
