Academics and Wikipedia 

Among many academics, Wikipedia has a poor reputation. It’s not uncommon for college professors to discourage students from using the site or penalize them for quoting, citing or referencing it in their written work. Usually left unstated, the assumption behind this attitude is that, since it does not go through the channels of peer review characteristic of academic research, Wikipedia content doesn’t meet the right standards of accuracy and verifiability, and is, therefore, inherently unreliable. In this way, academia’s model of legitimation via peer review (in which quality control is ensured by vetted scholars in positions of institutional power) is pitted against Wikipedia’s more malleable and decentralized model (in which quality control is distributed across a wide network of agents known as “Wikipedians” who build content and fact-check one another collectively).

This resistance is hardly surprising given that we academics are trained from the earliest stages of our professional formation to equate scholarship with the system of peer-review that has ruled higher education, by some accounts, since the 1600s. For many of us, scholarship is synonymous with peer-reviewed works, which is to say, publications anonymously evaluated and approved by experts in the field. Measured against this standard, of course, Wikipedia’s model of knowledge production looks more than vulgar and unrefined. It looks positively dubious. By shunning legitimation by the few in favor of legitimation by the many, this model seems to do away with the very notion of expertise, and to confuse what the Greeks called doxa (opinion) for episteme (knowledge). Since anyone and everyone can be a Wikipedian, or so the argument goes, anything and everything can end up on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it’s true or false. 

While we cannot deny that Wikipedia’s model of knowledge production has its limits (which model doesn’t?), it is revealing that those who oppose it most feverishly tend to be those who are least familiar with it, with what it is and how it works. For instance, even critics who know that behind every Wikipedia page there is a large community of contributors who fact-check, update, and cross-reference its claims may not realize that behind this community there is a complex constellation of rules, guidelines, and principles regulating the behavior of its members. Yes, practically anyone can become a Wikipedian. But this does not mean that Wikipedia is a digital Wild West where “anything goes.”

Thanks to its internal quality control mechanisms, Wikipedia often yields content that matches,  in terms of epistemic merit, the best of what the academic system of peer review has to offer. As early as 2005, a mere four years after Wikipedia’s launch, the prestigious journal Nature published an article showing that entries on the new site surpassed those in the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy and credibility, putting the newcomer above its more prestigious cousin as far as epistemic reliability is concerned. Since then, the line between academia’s centralized and Wikipedia’s decentralized models of legitimation has only continued to blur. Nowadays, more and more academics are incorporating Wikipedia into their courses in one way or another, with a few even suggesting that academic scholarship should emulate Wikipedia’s malleable approach to knowledge creation in order to meet the informational and pedagogical challenges of the new century.  

Wikipedia In the Classroom

In early 2024, I partnered with Wiki Education (a nonprofit that seeks to improve Wikipedia) to incorporate a Wikipedia assignment into a course I planned to teach that summer entitled “Humanities 315: The History of Science From the Scientific Revolution.” Beginning from the Copernican revolution in astronomical physics, this course traced the evolution of modern science through the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, paying attention to the progression of scientific concepts “from above,” as well as to the social, cultural, and political forces that shape scientific rationality “from below.”

At the time, Wiki Education was promoting an initiative designed to close a gap in Wikipedia’s archive. By Wikipedia’s own admission, scientists from traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Latinx, Black, Asian, Pacific-Islander, Indigenous, etc.) are significantly underrepresented on “the free encyclopedia,” resulting in a problematic imbalance. So, Wiki Education was on the hunt for professors who might be interested in incorporating an assignment into their classes that would put students to work on closing this gap. The basic idea was that students would become temporary Wikipedians and write biographical entries for influential scientists from minoritarian backgrounds who did not yet have a presence on the site.A two-in-one package, the assignment sought to educate students about the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia while giving them an opportunity to help address a concrete racial injustice tied to digital representation.

Given that my course dealt explicitly with how classism, patriarchy, and white supremacy have influenced the history of Western science (and given my own interest in the relationship between racial oppression and the politics of knowledge), I decided to apply. Upon hearing I was accepted, I quickly edited my course syllabus to make room for the five-week long assignment, which asked students to:

1. Create a Wikipedia profile 
2. Familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s “backend” software program (where the content that will eventually appears on the site is created, edited, and fact-checked)
3. Select a scientist from an underrepresented community from a list provided by Wiki Education
4. Conduct research on that scientist’s personal history, educational background, and contributions to the fields of science and technology 
5. Write, in groups of four or five, an entry on that scientist adhering to Wikipedia’s policies concerning citations and references, and 
6. Publish their entry (pending approval by site)

Students didn’t have to reach the final stage (publication) to receive full credit for the assignment, but they did have to complete all the steps leading up to it. And they were graded based on how far into the assignment they got and on the quality of their individual contributions to the collective writing effort. (I should mention that, as part of the initiative, Wiki Education provided support in the form of a $700 stipend and two staff members who helped answer student questions about how to create entries on the site). 

Summer came and went, and the assignment was by and large a success. Though there were hiccups along the way (some students produced entries that didn’t meet Wikipedia’s standard for publication, while others didn’t bother creating a profile in the first place), the majority of students reported enjoying every stage of the process. 

 For starters, many were thrilled to learn about how Wikipedia pages are made. Although none of my students were Wikipedians prior to the class, all of them reported visiting the site on a regular basis, even when professors explicitly warned against it. Wikipedia was already a key part of their online experience, a recurring digital landing spot. Thus, seeing the backend program, familiarizing themselves with the platform’s rules and regulations, and seeing a collectivist model of knowledge production in action helped demystify the site, which in turn gave them a more nuanced understanding of its various strengths and limitations. For example, the assignment enabled them to see that even if Wikipedia content isn’t put through the grind of traditional methods of peer review, it is subject to norms of accuracy and verification that make it more reliable than the average blog, website, or social media profile. At the same time, this behind-the-scenes access clarified for them that while Wikipedia may be good for general information about a large variety of topics, it’s not the place to go for original research and innovative discoveries. 

“Real” Writing 

The most common refrain I heard from students as we debriefed about the experience at the end of the summer semester was that they were proud to have finally worked on “something real.” “I felt like this was my first real assignment in a college class,” one said. Another followed with: “It was more real than writing the usual essay.” 

I confess: I didn’t respond well to these claims. I balked at the suggestion that traditional classroom assignments (the weekly response, the midterm essay, the final project, etc.) were somehow less substantive or less real than assignments that simply happened to have the name of a recognizable organization attached to them. Was writing for Wikipedia readers really more “real” than writing for me, or were my students just awe-struck by the fact that they were contributing to one of the most famous online platforms? 

It was a fair question. Or so I thought. 

After mulling over their comments for a couple of days, however, I realized that my reaction was…well, reactionary. Rather than listening to what my students were telling me about their experience of the assignment, I chose to worry about what I thought their comments meant about my teaching style, which regularly features the kinds of assignments they characterized as not-so-real. By projecting this insecurity onto my students, I failed to listen to them and to do what every professor should aspire to do, which is meet students halfway in conversation. To course-correct, I had to ask myself a question that demanded more careful consideration: In invoking the so-called reality of this assignment, what were my students flagging for me about assignments, homework, and education more generally? What did this concept mean to them such that it seemed to illuminate their experience? No sooner than I framed the problem in this manner, I came to see their comments in a new light–no longer as veiled criticisms of my pedagogy, but as sincere critiques of our education system and what traditional approaches to pedagogy do to students’ relationship to writing. 

From an early age, students are taught to write for their professors. Every student knows that what they produce in the classroom will rarely, if ever, be seen by anyone other than the person who has the power to give them an ‘A’ or an ‘F.’ Thus, for most students, writing is tangled up from the get-go with complex dynamics of power, discipline, and submission. Given the asymmetrical nature of the student-teacher relationship, it’s only a matter of time before students learn to give their teachers what they (the students) think they (their teachers) want. So, students master a skill that isn’t easy to unlearn. They learn to write exclusively  for “the Professor,” that amorphous character whose power in the classroom is virtually unchecked. From elementary school to college, the task is the same: Here is a topic, now write about it for an audience of exactly one (where the “one” in question is the person with power over you)! 

One consequence of writing under these conditions is that students are never asked to imagine what they might have to (or want to) say to a broader audience, by which I mean an audience composed of different kinds of people, each of which with their own reasons for wanting to listen in. This, I now believe, is what the Wikipedia assignment offered my students for the first time in their lives. It offered them an audience that wasn’t “the Professor,” an audience of not-me. And my students experienced this as a breath of fresh air. This new audience freed them from me, but it also freed them to imagine a host of other subjects in the position of “reader,” which altered their psychological landscape. I still remember one student in particular, a humanities major, who said: “It’s kinda cool that my mom might read this. I know she’ll want to show it to her friends and to my aunts. Maybe it will help her understand what I’ve been doing in college!” For that student, this assignment was more real. It was more real because it had the power to touch her social world and maybe even make it tilt. Had any other assignment ever done that? 

Furthermore, the mere prospect of having one’s writing “out there” (read: in the World Wide Web) was also transformative for some students. For them, the overarching question was no longer “What should I write in order to get the grade I want?” but “Knowing that strangers may read what I write, what do I actually want to say and how?” Even when my students didn’t reach the final stage of publishing their work on Wikipedia, the possibility that their work might have a life beyond the classroom was enough to shake things up and give them a glimpse of what another relationship to writing might look like.

Conclusion

Of course, I do not want to romanticize the Wikipedia assignment. Some of my students were annoyed by the assignment from the start. Others found the backend program counterintuitive and hard to use (and on this point, I concur). But even the students who complained about the nuts and bolts of the task later reported feeling happy about having participated in a pedagogical exercise with a political mission: helping scientists from underrepresented backgrounds receive the recognition they deserve. 

In effect, I could say that the Wikipedia assignment turned my classroom into an interesting house of mirrors where diversity was reflected off of multiple surfaces at once. Firstly, I, a professor of color, was teaching a class about the historical exclusion of minorities from the modern scientific project. Secondly, I was teaching this material to a highly diverse group of undergraduates attending at a Hispanic-Serving (HSI) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI). And finally, I was asking these students at this institution to help correct one of the ways in which this historical exclusion continues to be felt in the here and now—namely, the “gap” in Wikipedia’s coverage of the history of science and technology. My hope is that by learning to move between these layers of reflection, students came out of my summer class with a better appreciation of the gaps that have shaped our past and continue to inform our present. 

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

Inspired by his previous research experiences, Ariyaratne focused his efforts on improving the Wikipedia articles for type 1 diabetes and the RAGE receptor, adding valuable information and several new sections to both articles. 

Thousands of words and more than 70 new citations later, and Ariyaratne’s contributions to Wikipedia have already been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. 

Throughout the project, Ariyaratne aimed to ensure that his contributions would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the complexity and dynamism of the biological systems involved in both topics, as well the ongoing challenges and advancements in the field of diabetes research.

And the benefits of Ariyaratne’s Wikipedia assignment aren’t limited to only those who will read his work. The experience also enhanced his own understanding of the topic, along with sharpening his writing and research skills, he explained.

“During my contributions to Wikipedia, I refined my expertise in scientific communication and critical analysis, essential for synthesizing complex research findings into coherent, accessible content,” said Ariyaratne. “This task required rigorous validation of information and precise articulation of intricate biological mechanisms, thereby enhancing my competency in data interpretation and literature evaluation – skills integral to scientific inquiry and academic rigor.”

Interested in learning more about Ariyaratne’s experience editing Wikipedia as part of his coursework? Explore our interview below to find out how he views Wikipedia’s role in shaping public perception and understanding, what he enjoyed most about his Wikipedia assignment, and why he plans to continue to edit the online encyclopedia.

How did you feel about your assignment on Wikipedia compared to a traditional assignment?

Editing Wikipedia differed markedly from traditional academic assignments in both scope and impact. Unlike traditional assignments, which are typically confined to the academic environment and primarily assessed by instructors, contributing to Wikipedia allowed me to engage with a global audience. This broadened the significance of my work, as the content I edited and updated could potentially influence public knowledge and understanding worldwide.

The real-time, collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing also introduced a unique set of challenges and rewards. It required a heightened level of accountability and thoroughness, knowing that the information provided would be publicly accessible and subject to scrutiny by an extensive community of editors and readers. This added a practical dimension to my academic training, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and the impact of shared knowledge.

This experience was enriching and empowering, offering a tangible connection between my academic studies and their real-world applications. It fostered a sense of responsibility and pride in contributing to an educational resource that people rely on every day, which is a distinct and valuable departure from the typical results of traditional assignments.

How was writing this particular content meaningful to you?

Engaging in the editing and creation of science-related content for Wikipedia has been profoundly meaningful to my professional development and scholarly pursuits. This process allowed me to apply and expand my understanding of bioinformatics and molecular biology, areas critical to my research on disease pathophysiology. By translating complex scientific theories and data into accessible content, I played a direct role in circulating accurate scientific knowledge.

How would you describe the power of Wikipedia?

Wikipedia plays a substantial influence in shaping global awareness and understanding of a vast array of topics due to its universal accessibility and extensive reach. As an open-source platform that allows users from all over the world to edit and contribute, it provides access to information and makes knowledge accessible to anyone with internet access. This inclusivity is crucial for educational equity and promotes a diverse range of perspectives in content creation.

Moreover, Wikipedia’s model encourages continual updates and revisions, ensuring that information remains current and reflective of the latest consensus in various fields, including science and medicine. This dynamic process of content refinement helps maintain reliability and accuracy, despite the open-edit nature of the platform. I also believe that Wikipedia is a tool that is used in bridging the gap between expert knowledge and general understanding.

What was your favorite part of editing Wikipedia?

My favorite part of editing Wikipedia was the satisfaction I felt from contributing towards global knowledge. This platform allowed me to directly enhance the accuracy and depth of information available to millions around the world. Specifically, I enjoyed incorporating cutting-edge scientific research into articles, ensuring that complex and evolving topics like Type 1 diabetes and the RAGE receptor are represented with the most current and comprehensive data. This task not only deepened my own understanding but also allowed me to share crucial scientific insights in a way that is accessible to a broad audience.

Moreover, the immediate and visible impact of my contributions provided a unique satisfaction that traditional academic work rarely offers. Knowing that the updates I made could help students, educators, researchers, and the curious public to better understand complex scientific topics was incredibly rewarding. The collaborative and dynamic nature of the Wikipedia community, where edits can be discussed and refined collectively, also added a layer of engagement and community interaction that enriched the experience further.

What was your least favorite part?

One technical challenge I experienced while editing Wikipedia involved mastering the Wiki markup language (Wikitext). For those without prior experience, the learning curve can be challenging. Ensuring that articles are not only factually accurate but also well-organized and visually appealing requires proficiency in this specialized language.

Will you continue to edit?

I will of course continue to edit. My experience editing Wikipedia has been immensely rewarding, offering me the opportunity to contribute to the global exchange of knowledge on crucial scientific topics. I plan to continue editing and updating articles, as this aligns with my commitment to educating the public as well as my passion for science communication. Engaging with this platform allows me to stay connected with the latest research developments and ensures that information shared with the public remains accurate and relevant. This ongoing involvement not only strengthens my own understanding but also supports my professional growth in the field of sciences and medicine.

Our support for STEM classes like Gallage Ariyaratne’s is available thanks to the Guru Krupa Foundation.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

– Ekaterina Schiavone Hennighausen, first-year student at The George Washington University

And to the benefit of readers worldwide, Schiavone’s attention to detail paid off. When assigned the task of editing Wikipedia as part of her coursework last term, the international business major decided to combine her passion for sports with the mission to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of women.

“I’m really big into sports and I wanted to make sure that there’s a section talking about the women involved in Formula One, because they’re such a huge contributor to the sport, but they weren’t mentioned at all on Wikipedia,” explained Schiavone. 

Thanks to her efforts, the highly-trafficked article now includes a section with information about female engineers, past drivers, and other notable women involved in the sport. 

Last month, Schiavone and three other postsecondary student editors from across the country gathered virtually as the featured panelists for our Speaker Series webinar “Beyond the Classroom: Student editors improve Wikipedia.” Although the four students had never connected previously, their collaborative discussion often led to the discovery of shared sentiments, experiences, and reflections.

Like Schiavone, North Carolina Central University graduate student Johnny Shanahan felt an increased pressure from the open, accessible nature of Wikipedia, but his uncertainty quickly turned to appreciation.

“The public-facing element was maybe a little intimidating at first glance, but it ended up being a huge advantage throughout the whole process,” explained Shanahan, who created a new article for chemist Joseph Gordon II. “We had partners assigned for our subjects, and it’s not always easy to write something with more than one person contributing. The platform itself made it really, really easy and helpful, and there weren’t any bumps in the road that I had in other classes where we had group projects.” 

While Shanahan noted that he generally received positive feedback from Wikipedia editors, his fellow panelist Jianan Li experienced a rockier start to her work creating a new Wikipedia article about loneliness in old age.

After reviewing the constructive feedback her draft received and more thoroughly exploring the structure of existing Wikipedia articles, the UCLA graduate student set out to revise her text, rewriting the article in a more neutral tone and removing the argumentative style she was accustomed to using.

While Wikipedia already had a lengthy article about loneliness, Li was surprised at how little the article talked about older adults, given that they are at particular risk. During the panel discussion, Li expressed gratitude to the Wikipedia editors who engaged with her work on the new article, providing the feedback needed to align the article with Wikipedia’s style and tone.

“I feel this community is so alive because they are real people,” said Li, who ultimately received a special token of appreciation from a Wikipedia editor in recognition of her efforts. “They really make contributions to the articles with you, together. And on the talk page you will see a ‘thank’ button, so you can always thank them for their feedback and contributions that make this process more fun.”

As the panel discussion came to a close, moderator Brianda Felix asked the students to share something about their Wikipedia experience that surprised them. Brigham Young University history major Phoebe England highlighted three key areas:

“First, that I could even edit Wikipedia – I didn’t know that I, as a college student, could do that,” she emphasized. “Another thing was just how regulated Wikipedia is, and then the last thing that surprised me is how many people and things aren’t on Wikipedia that should be. It’s just insane the gaps that are there. I think this is such a great project for students because there’s still so many people and things that should be on Wikipedia that just aren’t yet.”

Schiavone, who was also surprised by Wikipedia’s regulations and editing guidelines,  echoed England’s reflection.

“It was really interesting to unravel everything that I learned in high school about Wikipedia,” said Schiavone. “There are so many people editing and monitoring what’s being put on Wikipedia that it can actually be used as a really helpful source and not just a starting place.”

Catch up on our Speaker Series on our YouTube channel and join us for our next webinar tomorrow, March 13!

Persistence & Progress: Confronting Wikipedia’s gender imbalance

Thursday, March 13 (10 am PST / 1 pm EST)
REGISTER NOW

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada. 

“I did not know there was such a significant gap in coverage of minority groups, so increasing representation and visibility on Wikipedia is important!” explained Ashley, a senior studying chemical engineering. “Being able to highlight the many accomplishments of Lisa Secat DeLuca is meaningful in that it can challenge stereotypes in STEM and give a more inclusive viewpoint to those who see our article. The potential to broaden the public’s perception of who can excel in STEM is exciting.”

Working together to tackle their Wikipedia assignment, Ashley and Rezwan divided the research and writing into sections including DeLuca’s early life, professional life, and ventures outside her primary work focus. The duo then wove together their individual contributions to create their collaborative text for the article, hoping readers feel as inspired by DeLuca’s trajectory as they were throughout their research.

“Highlighting a woman in STEM was part of the appeal of covering DeLuca,” noted sophomore Rezwan. “As a computer science major, I hear little about the diverse figures contributing to the field. It was fulfilling to be part of the movement to bring these excellent minds to light so that more people know that STEM is for everyone.”

As one of the first reference points for people seeking information and a source of data for AI tools, Wikipedia has the power to increase public awareness of notable figures like DeLuca, explained Ashley. 

“Her presence on Wikipedia makes her achievements accessible to a global audience,” said Ashley. “While writing, I really thought about the tone of the article. It was important to write in a way that was professional, unbiased, and easy to understand for any possible viewers.”

Creating DeLuca’s Wikipedia article required an open mind and thorough research, noted Ashley – skills that will translate well to her career goals as a chemical engineer. 

Echoing Ashley’s reflection, Rezwan also outlined connections between the assignment and his own career goals in software development.

“Writing a Wikipedia article was an excellent exercise in research and writing for a public audience,” said Rezwan. “I want to work in software development after graduating, and being able to research a topic is an essential skill in this field. Furthermore, communicating well is vital, and Wikipedia has built my confidence as our edits are still live!”

Both student editors expressed their surprise at how easy it was to make edits and add sources to the online encyclopedia, referencing helpful built-in tools like the automatic citation generator, as well as the comprehensive training modules and guidance from Wiki Education.

Rezwan, who has since made other contributions to Wikipedia, underscored his appreciation for the unique perspectives brought by editors of diverse backgrounds. Ashley also emphasized the impact that can be made through even minor edits from a variety of editors.

“It’s beneficial to work on an article even if the edits are small, because then the articles can represent a broader collection of facts and insight from all editors,” she explained.

Ashley’s and Rezwan’s work on Wikipedia is part of a larger Wiki Education initiative sponsored by the Broadcom Foundation, which supports the creation of new biographies of diverse people in STEM on Wikipedia.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

For over a decade I have taught a history and political science course on American citizenship that coincides with the fall election season in even-numbered years. In my usual version, students wrote concise research papers posted to a public-facing website (one which, it must be admitted, garners negligible page views). So I already had oriented the course slightly towards student work designed to engage with the general public, away from the kind of final assignment destined to sit in my learning management system’s gated garden forever, likely not even retrieved by its own author. Joining Wiki Education for Fall 2024 and having my 20 students live-edit Wikipedia articles, I suspected, could be a better way of achieving course goals of having students see the relevance of their research in real time, with authentic stakes. 

My students (and I) definitely found a Wikipedia-editing project challenging. Before the class began I selected about 40 course-related articles rated S or C class from which to choose, but they varied greatly in length, complexity, and research potential. There is a steep learning curve to navigating Wikipedia’s editing platform, even though Wiki Education’s tutorials are well-designed to guide students through the basics and get them editing confidently. I had to consider how much class time to devote to project instruction, debriefing, and troubleshooting, reducing some instructional time on other topics. Only a few students easily found scholarly reference material or saw immediate ways to improve their article, while others kept digging but couldn’t find many new sources or and got stuck on how to change what was already there.

Grading posed its own difficulties, which came up frequently in the weekly office hours held by the Wiki Education team. How could I standardize performance expectations when the articles were themselves so different? How would students know they were “done”? Would I grant an equivalent grade to those who added references or images vs. those who rearranged section text vs.  those who cleaned up jargon? If I wasn’t grading on word count, number of sources added, or longevity of edits, then what, precisely, were students being evaluated on? Especially as a first-timer, I found it helpful to talk with other instructors working through these issues. Focusing more on process and progress – evaluated partly by weekly journals and how well they stayed on track with the project schedule – rather than final product quality, resolved some (but not all) of the grading concerns. The dashboard is extremely well-designed both for student users and for faculty instructors, giving me clear access to their work and allowing progress-tracking throughout the semester.  

Despite these struggles, my students “got” the assignment in ways that were truly invigorating. For many of them Wikipedia had been a taboo source, one they’re not allowed to cite in college papers and had been actively steered away from in the past – yet one they all used regularly, sometimes guiltily. This project made them better users of the site, as it introduced them to the community of Wikipedians and their robust editorial policies, all of which was invisible to them before. Their audience became clearer: they weren’t writing just for their professor, but for general readers like themselves. Contributing to articles on voting rights, immigration law and citizenship requirements – in an election year, no less – lent urgency and importance to their work. 

In reflective essays at the end of the project, my students expressed genuine pride in what they’d accomplished. 14 out of 18 respondents gave themselves an A or B grade, citing specific improvements to their article and describing the level of effort, time, and care they put into the project (I will note I tended to concur with those self-assessments!). Through class peer review and feedback they got from fellow Wikipedia editors, they got a better grasp on the collaborative nature of knowledge, as comments like these attest:

“I also realized that people present information in different ways. Large projects like this one highlight that including a variety of perspectives makes the information richer and more meaningful, allowing us to share different insights on important topics.” 

“I thought that you could just add any information on Wikipedia and that it was easy to put in false information on the platform but after seeking the rules and expectations Wikipedia has, I realized its sole focus is for others to share together on important topics. It is a great way for minds to come together.” 

“I had to make sure to provide information directly from the source without injecting anything I thought or bias into it, even subconsciously. It was genuinely a great learning experience in that regard. Even beyond learning about Wikipedia itself, this project serves as a great thought exercise to really probe your mind and contemplate how you process and regurgitate information.” 

“I would say I learned a lot more about the process of research than the actual research topic itself as it was pretty straightforward … The overall process of understanding the topic to finding credible sources that you have to make sure to insert very specifically according to the guidelines was definitely intensive.” 

“I definitely feel better suited for research projects in the future after this, as I feel I’ve learned the importance of adjusting your scope in research as well as prioritizing credible sources.” 

I asked my students if I should repeat this project the next time I taught the course. I fully expected the class would tell me it was a good one-time experiment. Instead, I was amazed to see 17 of the 18 respondents said Yes or Maybe to that survey question. 

“Being able to see edits and the community working firsthand, along with how deeply they look into edits and sources, has been a great way to understand how one of the largest websites in the world functions. It would be great if more students, and people in general, could see this firsthand and understand this… I will genuinely go forward having much more faith in Wikipedia, along with being able to check sources when I’m skeptical, and plan to tell others about this exact thing. Overall it might be worth further experimenting how to go about it, but I’d rate the project 8/10 and can certainly say I learned something important to apply to real life from it.” 

“I loved this project, it felt like we did more than just a final project. We did something to help more people and if we continue to be passionate about this type of work we can continue to work on it moving forward.” 

“The project was crucial in the improvement of our analytical and professional writing skills. I enjoyed [peer review] as it provided me with a strong foundation of suggestions I should always apply to my writing. It was awesome to contribute to academic content on the internet.” 

“This was out of my comfort zone for assignments since it took learning a whole new system … I felt hesitant to add information and contribute as much as I could because I was conscious of, ‘is this the wrong thing to add’ or ‘if I take this part out will affect how the reader understands the article,’ but overall the assignment was interesting and it took learning a topic to a whole new level.” 

The students in Citizen Nation at Worcester State University in Fall 2024 edited 19 articles. They added 9.65K new words (many of which are still there as of this writing), 115 new references (most from academic database references), and have gotten 288k article views. The possibilities – and results – of adapting my standard research project into a Wiki Education collaboration exceeded all my expectations this term. I’m sure I’ll be back, in the next U.S. election cycle. 

-Tona Hangen, Professor of History, Worcester State University

Explore Dr. Hangen’s syllabus

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

“Wikipedia’s reach and accessibility make it a powerful tool for democratizing knowledge and amplifying underrepresented perspectives,” said LeFever, reflecting on his Wikipedia assignment experience in the Political Parties course he took last term. “This assignment felt more impactful because it allowed me to engage with real-world audiences and make a tangible contribution to public discourse.”

LeFever, a political science major focusing on social justice and race-related issues, hopes his efforts to improve the felony disenfranchisement in the United States article on Wikipedia will help prevent the spread of misinformation by giving readers a more complete understanding of the topic. The historical context and layered implications of denying felons the right to vote are critical to a more nuanced perspective, he explained.

“Felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects marginalized communities and perpetuates systemic inequality in the United States,” emphasized LeFever. “I chose this topic to shed light on these injustices and ensure the information is accessible to a broad audience.”

The new Wikipedian transformed several parts of the article, adding more than 1,100 words to underdeveloped sections that outline the economic, political, health, and recidivism implications of felony disenfranchisement. LeFever also added new details about state-specific reform efforts and context for how felony disenfranchisement policies in the United States disproportionately impact people of color.

“I wanted to ensure the article was balanced, well-sourced and emphasized the racial and socio-economic disparities tied to felony disenfranchisement,” said LeFever. “I hope readers come away understanding how voting restrictions contribute to broader patterns of disenfranchisement.”

While LeFever hopes readers will learn from his work, his own learning experience extended well beyond the topic itself.

“I learned to critically evaluate sources, identify bias, and distill complex information into accessible content, [all] essential for navigating today’s information landscape,” explained LeFever. 

He also noted that the assignment sharpened his research, fact-checking, and writing abilities – skills that will be invaluable as he pursues a career in public policy or advocacy, with a focus on civil rights and equity.

While he initially found Wikipedia’s formatting policies a bit challenging, LeFever embraced the chance to learn something new and enjoyed seeing his work live and accessible on the site. 

“It felt rewarding to contribute to a larger conversation,” said LeFever, who plans to continue to edit in his free time. “This experience has shown me how powerful Wikipedia can be as a platform for advocacy and education.”

Wiki Education thanks the Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation for their support of impactful student work like LeFever’s to enhance accuracy of information and promote digital citizenship on Wikipedia. 

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

“As someone deeply invested in the evolution of AI in education and training, I was thrilled to learn about Anna Makanju, an African woman shaping the AI industry,” explained educational technology student Lauren Love. “Since minorities are often underrepresented in computer science and artificial intelligence, our objective for creating this article was to highlight her impactful contributions and inspire awareness of her influence on the AI tools many use today.”

With a shared interest in adding representation to Wikipedia, information science student Katrina Powell teamed up with classmate Love to bring Makanju’s article to the encyclopedia.

“Lauren and I chose Anna Makanju because first and foremost, she’s a woman leader and second, we believe it’s crucial to increase representation of women in STEM fields on Wikipedia,” said Powell. “As a woman of color in STEM, we were particularly drawn to Anna’s story – her experiences navigating a male-dominated field and her commitment to ethical AI resonated with us. We hope that by sharing her story, we can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable online encyclopedia.”

The student pair, who worked closely to divide the workload and find high-quality sources for the new article, underscored the challenges posed by Wikipedia’s notability threshold for publishing new biographies. 

“I enjoyed delving into research to uncover Makanju’s diverse experiences and contributions,” said Love. “Refining the article to align with Wikipedia’s standards was also a rewarding challenge that pushed me to improve my writing. Ensuring alignment with their guidelines was definitely the toughest part.”

For both Love and Powell, the Wikipedia assignment offered the opportunity to give readers insight into the ongoing work to address ethical implications of emerging technologies, including Makanju’s efforts in shaping AI regulations to maximize societal benefit while minimizing risk. Powell, interested in pursuing a career in AI governance like Makanju’s, stressed the power of Wikipedia in raising awareness of underrepresented yet notable individuals.

“Before the assignment, I had no clue who Anna Makanju was, I had never even heard her name before,” explained Powell. “It was great learning about her background and the work she is doing in the tech field. I was deeply inspired.”

Similarly inspired by Makanju’s journey and professional impact, Love also appreciated the opportunity to sharpen her skills for a future career in learning and development and instructional design.

“Unlike traditional research or discussion boards that may lack engagement, this project allowed me to explore a topic of personal interest while refining critical skills such as creativity, collaboration, and effective communication,” said Love. “[It] enhanced my research and written communication skills, particularly in presenting diverse perspectives with neutrality.”

Powell’s and Love’s work on Wikipedia is part of a larger Wiki Education initiative sponsored by the Broadcom Foundation, which supports the creation of new biographies of diverse people in STEM on Wikipedia.

“It is critical for young women and people of color to see themselves as powerful AI leaders like Anna Makanju. The future of AI is here, and they can shape it to reflect their unique knowledge and achievements,” noted Paula Golden, President of Broadcom Foundation.

While their coursework on Wikipedia is now complete, both Love and Powell expressed plans to continue editing and improving the online encyclopedia into the future, finding the experience both fun and rewarding.

“It was a proud moment once the article was published,” said Powell. “It felt great to be part of history!”

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

One Wikipedia assignment, more than 3,500 words, and 36 new references later, and the Irwin County Detention Center Wikipedia article has been completely transformed – thanks to England’s efforts to provide readers with a more comprehensive overview of its history, which includes allegations of non-consensual surgeries performed on female detainees. 

As the article outlines, more than 40 women detainees and a nurse at the facility came forward in 2020 alleging that unnecessary medical procedures, including hysterectomies, were conducted on women without their consent. But concerns for the health and wellbeing of detainees were raised long before the highly-publicized allegations in 2020, explained England.

“News articles sensationalized this dehumanizing experience of immigrant women,” said England. “However, what was missed in the hype of it all, whether you believed the women’s experiences to be true, is that the treatment of immigrants had been poor long before that at the detention center and that any abuse no matter how big or small should be addressed regardless of whether it makes a good headline or not.”

Before England’s edits, the article contained one short paragraph that focused on the 2020 allegations. Now, the article provides readers with several new sections, including other allegations made before 2020, a more detailed summary of the 2020 allegations, the legal aftermath of the 2020 allegations, and the 2022 report outlining the United States Senate’s investigation of the center. 

“When I talked to people about my topic, many disregarded the story and said that events like these surely could not be happening in our current time,” said England. “I wanted people to know that immigrant detainees have been poorly treated and continue to be treated that way, and that this is not an isolated event.”

England emphasized that while she personally believes the women’s allegations, she wants readers to be able to make their own determinations based on the facts. 

Reflecting on the impact of her edits, England underscored the crucial role of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors in making information accessible to everyone.

“In this day and age, people are all about instant gratification,” noted England. “They want quick information that is easily accessible, and Wikipedia can easily make that knowledge accessible and reliable. It’s just down to Wikipedia editors to make sure that there are articles written about these topics and that they are written/sourced well.” 

England, who considered her assignment to improve Wikipedia a win-win for everyone, enjoyed the opportunity to develop her research and writing skills in a new way.

“While I do love writing historical analyses, it was super fun to do something different,” said England.  “I put in a lot of work and effort to make sure that this article was as unbiased as possible. It is also kind of cool to say you have something published on Wikipedia  – I sent the link to all of my family.” 

As an aspiring history professor, England recognized the value of bringing research to the public in an accessible way.

“While writing scholarly articles is important, I think it is extremely important to be able to synthesize that information for the general public in a more informal manner,” explained England. “That way your information can be used for good rather than just sitting and collecting dust. I would totally be willing to assign my future students a Wikipedia writing assignment!” 

England’s editing efforts are part of our three-year initiative to improve humanities and social justice content on Wikipedia – the largest campaign of its kind in history. Read more.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada.

Most trees produce their fruit in response to seasonal cues like spring, or the start or end of the wet season. Fig trees are unusual—they stagger their fruit production throughout the year. Animals that rely on fruit like birds, primates, and certain bats, depend on an adequate food supply all through the year. When fruit is in short supply, fruit-eating animals can still find food if they can find a fig tree. Surviving the lean times sets a cap on the population frugivores a forest can support, which means that figs play a critical role in sustaining tropical biodiversity.

But the ability of fig trees to support all this diversity hinges on tiny wasps less than 2 mm long: fig wasps.

Hundreds of species of fig trees and hundreds of species of wasps have tied their evolutionary fate to one another—each pair of species is totally dependent on one another for their reproduction. Fig wasps must lay their eggs in the flowers of the particular species of fig they’re tied to, and most fig species are dependent on that single species of wasp for pollination. 

But despite the importance of fig wasps, Wikipedia has very little to say about them. Out of 600 or so fig wasp species, there are eight genus articles and 24 species articles. And the majority of them are just short stubs that I created in a burst of editing back in 2008. Since then, the articles have received a slow stream of edits, but none of them have gotten any longer or gained more references. None, that is, until Shivani Green, a student in Kasey Fowler-Finn and Noah Leith’s Advanced Sex, Evolution and Behavior class, began working on the Pegoscapus article.

Pegoscapus is a genus of fig wasps. Species in this genus pollinate figs native to the Americas, like the Florida strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and the West Indian laurel fig (Ficus americana). 

When it came time to pick an article to improve, Greene said, “I chose to work on the Pegoscapus article as I learned about their unique reproductive style in a Plants and Fungi class. As I researched for this article, I saw the limited information available and wanted to create an easily accessible hub for myself, students, and the public to learn more about these vital wasps.”

Between the end of my contributions to the article in 2008 and the time when Greene started editing, the Pegoscapus article had received 44 edits from 31 different Wikipedians, but from a reader’s perspective the article was completely unchanged: it was just 87 words long with two references. 

Today, thanks to Greene, a biology major at Saint Louis University, the article is over 2,500 words long with 20 references, and gives an excellent overview of the genus, its biology, and its ecological importance.

Reflecting on her goals for the article’s readers, Greene wrote: “I hope they are able to get answers to questions they have about Pegoscapus as the limited research/discussions causes it to be difficult to draw conclusions. I hope they can be in awe of Pegoscapus‘s uniqueness and vitality to fig trees and their ecosystem. Lastly, I want them to be able to understand their complex life cycle.”

But why does it matter whether or not an obscure genus of fig wasps has an informative article? Because Wikipedia matters. In the nine years before the student started editing, the article received an average of one page view per day. Since then, it has averaged 4 views a day. This may not sound like a lot, but it’s four times the readership it received previously. 

Search engines rely heavily on Wikipedia, and most AI tools are trained on its content. Topics that are absent from Wikipedia are less visible to search engines, while AI tools may just “hallucinate” answers for them. 

From a conservation perspective, fig wasps matter. They are, quite literally, the small things that run the world. And like so many other small organisms that ecosystems depend on, fig wasps are at risk in a rapidly warming climate. As Greene wrote in the Pesoscapus article:

Fig wasp life span is significantly reduced with temperature increases predicted to occur by the end of the 21st century. If Pegoscapus cannot adapt to the increasing mean daytime temperature, then their shortened lifespan will reduce the dispersion of pollination among flowering fig trees, heavily impacting the tropical forest ecosystem.

Without representation in the sort of readily available information that Wikipedia provides, the fate of Pesoscapus wasps may go unnoticed by most of the world until it’s too late. And since each fig species’ ability to produce fruit depends entirely on their pollinator species, declines in fig wasp populations pose a threat to the many bird, primate, and bat species that depend on them.

And for student editors who have an opportunity to contribute to knowledge creation, the Wikipedia assignment matters. As Greene notes about her experience with the class, “Wikipedia allows students to gain confidence in their research and writing skills, helping them realize they can make a difference in the scientific community as well as the general public. It allows for there to be an easily accessible resource for the public to start with when trying to understand a topic. Giving them an aggregation of research on complex and niche topics allows for there to be more discussion, awareness, and hopefully, research.”

Wiki Education thanks the Horne Family Foundation for their support of this work to improve Wikipedia content related to species habitat, wildlife populations, and the impact of climate change.

Interested in incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your course? Visit teach.wikiedu.org to learn more about the free resources, digital tools, and staff support that Wiki Education offers to postsecondary instructors in the United States and Canada. Apply by December 1, 2024 for priority consideration for spring 2025.