Developing Children’s Ability to Make Credibility

Judgment on

Information in Wikipedia

Table of Contents

Introduction............................................3Wikipedia’s Reliability and Credibility.................4Epistemic Concerns about Wikipedia....................4Wikipedia Policies and Features.......................6

Children’s Attitude Towards Wikipedia...................9Developing Children’s Ability to Make Credibility Judgment...............................................11Conclusion.............................................12Bibliography...........................................13

2

Introduction

In a society that emphasized learning and knowledge, we

are constantly embarked on information seeking. Hence,

source monitoring and the ability to make credibility

judgment are important. These are key elements in our

effort be accurately informed. While adults are more

equipped for credibility judgment, the same may not be

true of children. In a study conducted on children’s use

of Internet it was found that “majority of child

searchers believed that all information they found on the

Internet was true” (Schacter, Chung, & Dorr, 1998, p.

847). Therefore it is important that we help children to

develop the ability to make credibility judgment on

information from Internet (and Wikipedia in particular).

Children must learn to analyze and challenge the

authority of documents found on the Internet, not

just assume the document is credible (Schacter et

al., 1998, p. 841).

This need becomes more pertinent in a society like

Singapore where information technologies are playing an

increasingly integral role in children’s academic

learning. One of the most popular information sources

that children go to is Wikipedia. In an informal survey

carried out with 31 children between eleven and twelve

years old, 24 of them indicated they regularly access

Wikipedia for school projects. This popularity of

3

Wikipedia among children and the lack of credibility

judgment in children should alert educators, librarians,

and academic institutions to help develop such ability in

children.

This importance of helping our children develop the

ability to make credibility judgment must not be

neglected. Although there are studies that show Wikipedia

can be a credible and reliable source of information (see

Fallis, 2008), not every entry in Wikipedia are of the

same quality standard. While children may trust Wikipedia

to provide reliable information; it is necessary that

they be able to determine how much trust to give to each

individual entry. It is important, then, for children to

acquire the ability to make credibility judgment in order

to be a responsible and critical consumer of information.

In what follows, I begin with reviewing some common

concerns about Wikipedia and the empirical results about

the reliability of Wikipedia. I then discuss children

attitude towards information on Wikipedia, and finally

offer some suggestions to help our children become

responsible and critical users of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s Reliability and Credibility

Wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular as an

encyclopedic source of information since its inception in

2001. According to Alexa Internet, Inc. that provides

commercial based web traffic data, Wikipedia is among the

top 10 most popular sites globally, trailing behind

4

Google, Baidu, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook and Yahoo

(Alexa, 2015a). It is the seventh most popular site in

Singapore (Alexa, 2015b) and sixth among online

encyclopedias (Alexa, 2015c). This popularity is directly

related to the volume and currency information on

Wikipedia. However, its popularity is also plagued by

about its reliability, especially taking into account its

open framework that allowed contributors, experts and

novices, to edit its pages (Crovitz & Smoot, 2009). There

being no mechanism to safeguard its information from

unintentional misinformation or intentional malice posed

as a serious concern for users. Among the well known

cases are Professor Ryan Jordan who held “trusted

volunteer positions within Wikipedia known as

‘administrator’, ‘bureaucrat’, and ‘arbitrator’” who was

found out to be a fraud who made false claim about his

qualifications and credentials (Cohen, 2007) and Stephen

Colbert who encouraged people to falsify information on

Wikipedia (Crovitz & Smoot, 2009, p.92; Fallis, 2008,

p.1665). Nevertheless, there are empirical data that

shows Wikipedia can be a reliable and useful source of

information when used responsibly and critically.

Epistemic Concerns about Wikipedia

Educators’ concern about the reliability of the articles

on Wikipedia and its closely related issue of

verifiability is warranted when we consider its open

nature. While these concerns are valid and significant,

5

Wikipedia has been proven by empirical study that it

performs comparatively well in both areas. In his article

to determine the value of Wikipedia as a source of

knowledge, Fallis (2008) pointed out the three main

reasons people question the reliability of Wikipedia,

which are (1) misinformation, (2) disinformation, and (3)

humbug or bullshit (pp. 1665-6). Misinformation may arise

when non-expert contributors either unintentionally

adding inaccurate information or removing accurate

information. There might also be possibility of ill-

intentioned contributors who may try to deceive readers

of these information, example the Professor Ryan Jordan

or John Siegenthaler case (Cohen, 2007; Sunstein, 2006,

p. 156). Questions about reliability could also arise

out of invested interest of contributors who may

compromise information integrity and misled readers.

Finally, there are cases whereby contributors have no

concern for the truth, an indifference to reality of

things that philosophers termed as humbug or bullshit

(Franfurt, 2005, p.33-34).

Notwithstanding the concern on its reliability, there are

empirical evidences that show Wikipedia can be a reliable

information source. The most commonly cited example is

the study carried out by Giles comparing Wikipedia and

Encyclopedia Britannica; it showed that Wikipedia is

comparable with Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of its

reliability (Magnus, 2009, p. 75; Fallis, 2008, p. 1666).

While Giles only compared articles on scientific topics,

6

other studies show that Wikipedia performs equally well

in comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica in other

disciplines (Fallis, 2008, pp. 1666-1667). Besides

comparing with traditionally trusted source of

information, Wikipedia’s reliability rating is much

better when compared to other online information sources.

Fallis & Fricke (2002) and Impicciatore, Pandolfini,

Castella, & Bonati (1997) also found that Wikipedia is

more reliable than other Internet sites which contain a

significant amount of inaccuracies (as cited in Fallis,

2008, p.1667). Furthermore, studies have also shown that

contributors and editors quickly rectify vandalism in

Wikipedia, usually within minutes (Fallis, 2005, p. 1666;

Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008, p. 990).

However, when Rector (2008) made a comparison between

Wikipedia and other encyclopedias she concluded that

Wikipedia is inferior compared to other standard

reference resources. As such, she saw the validity of

questioning the use of Wikipedia by students and other

academics (p. 20). Magnus (2009) also pointed out the

questionable character of Wikipedia entries, citing

Giles’ article in Nature, stated that “the result do favor

Britannica over Wikipedia” (p.75). Tynan (2008) also brought

up a valid point regarding the time taken for vandalism

to be corrected. The time taken for corrections in each

individual entries varies from a few hours to months, and

this could be detrimental for users of Wikipedia,

especially children. Children may have acessed false

7

claims and information during the time when such

inaccuracies were left undetected and uncorrected. These

evidences may discount our confidence about the

reliability of Wikipedia, but Magnus make an important

point when he said, “it is a mistake to ask about all

Wikipedia entries as one population” (Magnus, 2009,

p.76). While Wikipedia can be a reliable source of

information, we must appraoch each entry with “self-

cosncious skepticism” (p. 87). Despite such skepticism,

the credibility of Wikipedia can be ameilorated by the

policies and features implimented to ensure its

credibility and reliability.

Wikipedia Policies and Features

While Magnus (2009) encouraged user to approach Wikipedia

with skepticism, he also stated that it is not “enough

reason to abandon it entirely” (p.87). We can concur with

this conclusion, especially when we see the policies and

features intorduced by Wikipedia to counter its critics.

These features and policies addressed the related issue

of verifiablity that could enhance Wikipedia’s

reliability. People are less likely to be misled if

verification of information is made possible in the

process of information seeking. Generally we believe that

traditional encyclopedias are more reliable because there

is a process of information verification in the form of

an editorial team. This trust on group testimony is

equally applicable to Wikipedia, which has a large

8

community of contributors who serve in the same capacity

as the editorial team. The ‘crowd’ involved in building

information in Wikipedia increases the possibility for

inaccuracies to be quickly identified and rectified. As

an open source of information, its reliability can be

further established on the basis of the innate quality

check within its own system. The “crowd” consisting

people with diverse expertise and holding different

perspectives can provide an aggregately reliable source

of information. Besides, information on Wikipedia can be

verified using other information sources provided by

Wikipedia entries through the references, further

readings and external links at the end of each article

(see Figure 1, 2 and 3). These proved to be valuable

means for verifying the accuracy of the information and

could supplement any incompleteness found within

Wikipedia’s entries.

Figure 1 References

9

Figure 2 Further Reading

Figure 3 External Links

Furthermore, the talk page and history page allow readers to

trace the editing processes as well as to understand the

10

rationale for its changes (Sunstein, 2006 p. 152; Fallis,

2008, p. 1668). This provision allows contributors and

readers to note and follow the discussions on changes,

and suggest for improvements on the articles.

Furthermore, such disclosure of past historical

transactions and providence of feedback about users and

contents can significantly increases user’s trust.

Another important feature of Wikipedia is the rating of

each article by the editorial team. The quality of

articles are judged based features including style,

structure, images, references, stability, neutrality,

length and comprehensiveness. The quality of each article

is labeled at the top of each entry, especially those

that have “no citations, debated neutrality or appear

incomplete” (FindingDulcinea, 2015). This serves as

warning signs to readers that such article might not be

reliable. While they do not eliminate all possible

errors, readers can make use of these features to make a

better and critical use of Wikipedia. These features,

together with the official policies, can significantly

increase users’ trust in the quality of information on

Wikipedia and address user’s skepticism.

Wikipedia in its capacity to be a responsible information

provider has policies in place to protect user’s

interest. One such policies is its general disclaimer,

while not actually a reliability ensuring mechanism,

served to alert users to the nature of information found

within its site, as well as a reminder to user of the

11

need to verify any dubious or ambiguous information.

Although this can sometimes be cited as argument against

the reliability of Wikipedia, such disclaimer is common

practice for information sources (even Encyclopedia

Britannica). Wikipedia’s disclaimer reminds readers to make

responsible and critical use of its information. In

addition, a key policy of Wikipedia is the requirement

that all entries must be verifiable through official and

peer reviewed sources. Even though being an open source

of information where anyone can edit its information,

Wikipedia acting as a responsible information provider

does take effort to ensure the reliability and

credibility of its information.

While we cannot ensure every entry in Wikipedia to be

totally reliably and credible, there are mechanism in

place to ensure that users are informed of the quality of

each article. In addition, there are substantial

empirical evidences to show Wikipedia can be a reasonably

reliable source of information when used responsibly and

critically, rather than dismissing all its entries as a

population. This, then, makes our argument to help

children develop the ability to make credibility judgment

valid and relevant.

Children’s Attitude Towards Wikipedia

The concern with children using Wikipedia, then, is not

the credibility and limitations of Wikipedia. Wikipedia

even with its limitations can continue to be a reliable

12

information source when users make responsible and

critical use of its information. The worrisome thing

about children using Wikipedia is their inability to make

critical judgment of its information. While there are

many studies done on the perception and credibility

judgment of online information, studies on children are

comparatively limited. In Shen, Cheung & Lee (2013), they

pointed out that contributing factors to students’ use of

Wikipedia are trust and information usefulness. In their

investigation with university students, it was found that

students “simply regard Wikipedia as trustworthy” and

usually negligent about cheking its reliability (p. 514).

On the other hand, others such as Lim (2009), Rieh &

Hilligoss (2008), and Head & Eisenberg (2010) show that

college students are not entirely ignorant of the

limitations of Wikipedia and do exercise certain degree

of cautions when using information in Wikipedia.

Generally college students who used Wikipedia are aware

of its limitations (Head & Eisenberg, 2010, p. 11; Lim,

2009, p.2200) and are not “as navie in assessing

credibility with digital media as some prior work

suggest” (Rieh & Hilligoss, 2008, p. 64). While it is

true that college students are cautious and aware of the

possibilities of inaccuracy, they may not “make special

efforts to verify the accuracy of the information” (Lim,

2009, p. 2200). Does this also apply to how children use

Wikipedia?

13

In their study of how different age group perceive the

credibility of information, Flanagin & Metzger (2011)

discovered that children perceived traditional expert-

vetted information (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) as more

credible compared to Wikipedia but this bias is not

conclusive as there are strong suggestion that they are

affected by preprogrammed mindset to see Wikiepdia as

less credible. This can be supported by the finding that

children “do not attend strongly to information

differences from various origins” (p. 370). The study

shows the tension behind children’s credibility judgment

of Wikipedia between information content and information

context exhibited by the differences in their evaluation

of the same content placed in different platform, and

even according Wikipedia content a higher degree of

credibility (p. 370). Hence, it is not conclusive that

children have sustained ability to make credibility

judgment. Children’s difficulty in making credibility

judgment on their own is further evidenced in Lorenzen

(2001), it was discovered that children have difficulty

evaluating the quality of information and often unable to

make good credibility evaluation (as cited in Large,

2005, p. 374). Hirsh (1999) also pointed out that

students seldom question the accuracy or validity of

acquired information (as cited in Large, 2005, p. 374).

Shen et al. (2013) found that students are neither

concerned about accuracy nor diligent in verifying the

information. These findings can be summed up in Lim

14

(2009) that there is no “strong evidence that students

made special efforts to verify the accuracy of

information” (p. 2200). These works give credence to the

conclusion that “majority of child searchers believed

that all information they found on the Internet was true”

(Schacter et al., 1998, p. 847). In summary, we may agree

with Schacter et al. (1998) that,

Children must learn to analyze and challenge the

authority of documents found on the Internet, not

just assume the document is credible (p. 841).

Therefore, the importance of developing children’s

ability to make credibility judgment must be taken

seriously by educators.

Developing Children’s Ability to Make CredibilityJudgment

Children, due to their mental developmental stage, may

not have the same ability as adults and youths to

evaluate information on Wikipedia, or to make effective

credibility judgment. The need for children to evaluate

Wikipedia does not discount the fact that it has the

potential to be a reliable information source. The issue

is how we can help our children to make good its use,

with the understanding that it has the potential to be a

good source of information. It is impractical to prohibit

the use of Wikipedia, and more so with its increasing

popularity among students. A better option would be to

15

take proactive steps to train our children to use

Wikipedia responsibly and critically (Rieh & Hiligoss,

2008, p. 64).

Our effort to help children develop credibility judgment

ability can begin with discussing the Wikipedia concept

with them. Educators can engage in regular and in-depth

discussion with children about the peculiar

characteristics of Wikipedia. Ruth & Houghton (2009)

listed several characteristics that is useful for

educators to discuss with children, such as the

collobarative nature of the information, the fluidity of

its information, Wikipedia’s open framework and the

potential for shifting of perspectives through time (Ruth

& Houghton, 2009, p. 149). Familiarization with how

Wikipedia works will give children handles to negotiate

their use of information on Wikipedia. Children

understanding that it is a collaborative effort where

individuals, experts and novices, work together to

develop the shared knowledge would increase their

awareness of its limitations.

Secondly, children must be taught how to interact with

the different features incorporated within Wikipedia,

such as its talk page and history page. When children are

conversant with these pages, they would be able to

understand and make value judgment about the changes,

corrections and additions made to the respective

articles. Users can also use the talk page to interact with

editors and contributors for clarification when needed.

16

Other features that children should be familiar with are

the references, further readings and external links

placed at the end of most articles. Children can make use

of these to verify any ambiguous information within the

article. Children should also be taught to exercise

caution with articles that lack such features. Another

feature that would be helpful for children to take note

is the quality rating of each article. Finally, Educators

should invest in improving children’s digital literacy by

incorporating Wikipedia into academic curriculum and

personal involvement in working with Wikipedia will

“provide students with opportunity to develop digital

literacy” (Shen, Cheung, & Lee, 2013, p. 514). The

incorporation of Wikipedia into academic pedagogy can

deepen the children’s understanding of Wikipedia world

(Ruth, 2009; Hoeck & Hoffmann, 2013). Active

participation through purposeful use of Wikipedia in

academic curriculum also helps children to develop skills

to become adequate participants in the information

seeking process. This will also help children to see the

importance of evaluating information and hone children’s

competence in selecting, evaluating and use of

information. This will also train children to be active,

diligent and resourceful information seekers who value

accuracy, and thus becoming responsible and wise

consumers of information.

17

Conclusion

There are ample empirical evidences to show Wikipedia,

with its limitations, can be a valid and reliable

information source for children in their information

seeking process. The features and policies in place also

help to ensure that contributors are responsible and take

effort to ensure their information are accurate. Due to

Wikipedia’s nature it is impossible to eliminate all

errors, the responsibility rest on the users to make good

use of Wikipedia. Thus, it stresses the importance of

helping our children to develop the ability to make

credibility judgment, especially when they are not always

“cognizant that false, inaccurate information [can be]

posted and that the information they find needs to be

challenged and questioned” (Schacter et al., 1998, p.

848). Educators and adults can help children to develop

digital literacy and information literacy by training and

guiding them on the use Wikipedia, helping them to

understand the workings, features and policies of

Wikipedia and incorporating Wikipedia into academic

curriculum. We believe that children would be more

equipped to make better use of Wikipedia when these

simple steps are in place, and would eventually enhance

their information seeking experiences and academic

development. This would help to see our children becoming

responsible and critical users of Wikipedia and become

wise consumers of online information equipped with the

ability to make credibility judgment.

18

19

Bibliography

Alexa. (2015, September 21). The Top 500 Sites on the Web. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from Alexa.com: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Alexa. (2015, September 21). Top Sites in Singapore. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from Alexa.com: http://alexa.com/topsites/countries/SG

Alexa. (2015, September 21). Top Sites in: All Categories > Reference> Encyclopedias. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from Alexa.com: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/categories/Top/Reference/Encyclopedias

Cohen, N. (2007, March 2007). The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from The New York Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/technology

Crovitz, D., & Smoot, W. (2009, Jan). Wikipedia: Freind, Not Foe. The English Journal, 98(3), 91-97.

Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674.

Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2011). From Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences inthe perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication & Society, 14(3), 355-374.

Franfurt, H. (2005). On bullshit. NJ: Princeton University Press.

20

Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2010). How today's college student use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday, 15(3), 1-15.

Hoeck, M. V., & Hoffmann, D. (2013). From Audience to Authorship to Authority: Using Wikipedia to Strengthen Research and Critical Thinking. ACRL (pp. 217-229). Indianapolis, IN: ACRL.

Large, A. (2005). Children, Teenagers, and the Web. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 374-392.

Lim, S. (2009). How and Why Do College Students Use Wikipedia? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189-2202.

Magnus, P. (2009). On Trusting Wikipedia. Episteme, 6(1), 74-90.

n.a. (2015, September 21). Using Wikipedia Effectively. RetrievedSeptember 21, 2015, from Finding Dulcinea: http://www.fingdingdulcines.com/guides/Technology/Wikipedia.pg_00.html#00

Rector, L. H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuraccy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22.

Rieh, S., & Hilligoss, B. (2008). College Students' Credibility Judgments in the Information-Seeking Process. In M. J. Metzger, & A. J. Flanagin, Digital Medias, Youth, and Credibility (pp. 49-72). MA: The MIT Press.

Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki way of learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 135-152.

Schacter, J., Chung, G., & Dorr, A. (1998, July). Children's Internet Searching on Complex Problems: Performace and PRocess Analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 840-849.

21

Shen, X.-L., Cheung, C., & Lee, M. (2013). What leads student to adopt information from Wikipedia? An empirical investigation into the role of trust and information usefulness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 502-517.

Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia. New York: Doubleday.

Tynan, D. (2008, January). The Truth Is Out There ... Somewhere. Us Airways Magazine, 42.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good,the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995.

22