Top Five Results: Wiki-This
I’m going to start by giving the instructions I was given at that beginning of class yesterday: Open the browser on your computer, go to Google.com and search for “Martian Luther King, Jr.” choose the fifth search result and open it. We were asked, “What kind of information do you see?” I’ll save you the trouble of the search, but please do visit the site, but be warned, it is not a professional or child friendly site: MartinLutherKing.org
It only took a moment or two of looking around the site before audible gasps to begin erupting in pockets around the computer lab. At first glance I didn’t see anything wrong with the site: a large portrait Dr. King takes up the middle of the page, at the top there is a MLK “pop quiz” for students, down the right hand side of the page there are links for historical writings and further reading, and down the left there is a quote from Newsweek Magazine (Newsweek Magazine 1-19-1998, page 62 is the citation given by the site). Truth be told, It wasn’t until I began to read the quote that I realized something was strange… then, one of those gasps came from me. I am not going to repost the quote, but I will say that I spent nearly two hours trying to prove or disprove it; my efforts yielded only frustration and a FireFox crash. However, I will say that I was able to submit the rumor to Snopes.com, the online rumor debunker forum that I used in my last post concerning Al Gore and the invention of the Internet. If the nice folks at Snopes.com respond, I’ll post their findings.
“What lesson can we learn from this?” my professor asked. We quickly came to an answer, “Creditability.” Creditability is not a new term in the English Language Arts Classroom – at any level of education. As students doing research we need creditable sources: a point that has been made numerous times since we first began to learn the fine art of research – an art, as it turns out, we need to keep updated. The next questions from the professor was about why we didn’t immediately question the creditability of the site. The answers included these to list a few:
- Site looked professional
- Quotes and sources provided
- Links to other pages worked
- Site ended in “.org”
- Top five results
The last answer on the list is the most important, especially when considering the criteria for making it to the first page of search results:
- Sites that contain the name or keyword in the web address
- Sites with the highest number of links coming into them
- Sites that contain the content
Foremost, I want to note how disturbing it is that actual content is the least important of the criteria. Now, I feel I should add that the second point can be misleading; “highest number of links coming into them” actually means links AND advertisements.
So, how did MartinLutherKing.org end up number five on the google search results? For one, the name: three of our key search terms are included in the URL. Second, there are at least twenty working links on the first page alone.
Hopefully this point becoming evident: the first page is important. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about a newspaper, a novel, a website or a page of search results: the first page is important. People doing their research may never really get past the first page, so why are we teaching them to skim over one of the most useful tools that, almost enviably, shows up on that first page? I know that the rhetorical questioning can become a bit tiring, but why are we as educators and future educators ignoring Wikipedia.com? In the search results for “Martin Luther King, Jr.” the wiki page appeared before the inflammatory website and it even appeared before the King Center website. Because we asked, “why did we trust the MartinLutherKing.org site at first glance?” it is only fair to ask the same of the wiki page – and the answer does not change. There are links, quotes, sources and it was in the top five results: the wiki site meets all the criteria, but adds at least one additional draw… you can actually find and link to the sources mentioned on the article.
In Darren Crovits and W. Scott Smoot’s article, “Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe,” they note that one of the arguments against Wikipedia.com is that it is “an unregulated free-for-all of misinformation”; and while they note that this is sometimes the case, it is actually more of “an open collaborative in various stages of development, depth and sophistication” (92). In the pamphlet, “Seven Things You Should Know About Wikipedia,” released by the website Educause.edu, it is noted that helps create a source of unbiased information. Let’s return to the Martian Luther King, Jr. search and compare some quotes from the first five results (note: all are “.org” cites):
- “Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as “Daddy King.” “Daddy King” named his son Michael. In 1935, “Daddy King” had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as “Martin Luther King” and to his son as “Martin Luther King, Jr.” None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. “Daddy” King’s son’s real name is to this day Michael King.”
- “Martin Luther King, Jr. was born at noon on Tuesday, January 15, 1929 at the family home, 501 Auburn Avenue, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Charles Johnson was the attending physician. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the first son and second child born to the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King. Also born to the Kings were Christine, now Mrs. Isaac Farris, Sr., and the Reverend Alfred Daniel Williams King. The Reverend A.D. King is now deceased.”
- “Martin Luther King, Jr., was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the son of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta Williams King.[3] King’s father was born “Michael King,” and Martin Luther King, Jr., was originally named “Michael King, Jr.,” until the family traveled to Europe in 1934 and visited Germany. His father soon changed both of their names to Martin Luther in honor of the German Protestant leader Martin Luther.[4] He had an older sister, Willie Christine King, and a younger brother.”
What is most important to note here is the information being left out and how it is dealt with when included – specifically the information about Dr. King’s name change. In the first quote the author uses the name change information to make the reader question the identity of Dr. King, hoping the reader will be offended or confused by the idea that the man who has roads, memorials and holidays baring his name didn’t really bear that name. The second quote, provided by the King Center, leaves out entirely the issue of a name change, and basically skimming over the early life of Dr. King with simple facts: where he was born, who was in charge of the birth and names of parents and siblings. By treating this information as simple fact the reader also sees it as such, not giving it a second thought. The final quote is from the wiki article; this quote combines the two that precede it with more information, and seems to be unbiased. Note how the wiki article adds that the “inspiration” mentioned in the first quote was actually inspired by a trip to Europe. Furthermore, the wiki article includes citations that are traceable and links to other related pages. Tone and word choice should also be included in this conversation, especially when looking at the biases expressed in each of these sites and quotes, but that would be deserving of another article all in and of its self.
Crovit’s mentions the high speed at which information can change on Wikipedia.com. The best example he gives of this rapid rate of change on Wikipedia.com is a Youtube.com video showing in time lapse the changes that were made to an entry concerning the Virginia Tech shooting.
When I watch this video and think about the college students who were likely adding to the entry, I see it reflecting back on its self: a mirror facing a mirror. In the last of the “Seven Things You Should Know About Wikipedia” pamphlet, the author notes that “Wikipedia blurs the line between consumption and creation of knowledge, giving motivated students the opportunity not only to use but also to generate knowledge and see themselves as members of a community of learners.” I think that video demonstrate that perfectly:college students writing, reporting, growing, living and sharing; adding to the conversation as it happens.
Filed under: Technology Media | 1 Comment
Tags: Technology In The Classroom, Wikipedia
Wow
well done. I really enjoyed reading your blog post and the depth you went into concerning MLK JR.