The Middlebury College news item containing the quote above first says “…while Wikipedia is fine for some background research, it is not to be used as a primary source.” This would seem to be a statement by the journalist or other writer working for the College’s public information department.

One could hardly find fault with that position, which would be similarly applicable to any other Encyclopedia or “popular” source. The exception, of course, would be a paper reporting directly on the content of Wikipedia or another similar source, in which case that *would* be the primary source. I would hope that they would likewise not accept textbooks or other compilations as “primary sources”!

The article then goes on to say:

“Members of the Vermont institution’s history department voted unanimously in January to adopt the statement, which bans students from citing the open-source encyclopedia in essays and examinations.

With the failure to close the quote in this paragraph, it is impossible to be sure whether the voice is that of the website author or the history department. In any case, if it is an accurate statement of the department’s intent, it must be thought fatally flawed, since any direct quote should be accompanied by an appropriate citation, and without banning quotes from Wikipedia entirely (rather than just as primary sources) common academic practice would demand that citations be allowed.

Then comes what appears to be an unambiguous statement by the history department, which actually says nothing at all about Wikipedia, other than allowing that it is convenient, and that it (along, one would assume, any other source) cannot be used to “escape the consequence of errors.” I would hope that nobody at Middlebury is suggesting that other sources can be so used!

Many good points have already been made – I simply want to reiterate with some anecdotal evidence. It should be obvious that some sources are more trustworthy than others. I am formally trained with a research Ph.D. from the University of St Andrews, but for convenience I do use Wikipedia as a quick, first step. Just last night I looked something up online concerning Josephus,then pulled down my venerable hard-bound copy to “read” the text cited. But rest assured, just because a reputable publishing company took the time/expense to print something does NOT mean that it is trustworthy. As has been stated,

“properly educated people ‘will learn not to take any claim, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, at face value; but to consider the interests of the people who made the claim.’ My point is that one has to consider not only the interests of the people making the claim but the ease with which unsupportable claims can be made in a particular source when evaluating its credibility.”

Everyone has an agenda, even me, and this is part of judging any/every source. I once had a journal submission rejected by a very respectable journal. As is the case with many good journals, I received some feedback as to why my article had not been accepted. I was told my article was “well written, well documented, and thoughtful,” but the reviewing scholar in my field had disagreed with my position. I was shocked. I thought that was the purpose of scholarly journals-to provide a forum for lively debate between informed scholars. I have read numerous articles in reputable journals that I did not agree with, and in fact, that I found poorly argued. Why would a well written, well documented article get rejected? A better rationale is if that particular article is presenting a old, worn out argument. This example is simply to show that agendas drive everything.

In any event, we do need to loosen our collars with electronic media – whether we like it or not it is the direction of the future. I prefer print media, but I have found misrepresentations of primary source material (only a few times) by “scholars” in a print medium. Sadly, I believe this had been done on purpose – the accompanying commentary pointed in that direction. This would have never passed the academic scrutiny used to train me, but in both cases this was an American scholar (not that only Americans can be guilty) expressing what could be called a politically correct position. Wikipedia is not the only guilty medium.

Here is a fascinating letter on the subject, from one professor* to another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

* note: be sure to check my other link too to understand why it is fascinating.

I would really like to know why an undergrad can’t cite wikipedia. Yes, you try to cite more authoritative sources. Clearly, it is better to cite this one paper published in the most prestigious journal, because you can assume that several smart people reviewed the work, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong about citing wikipedia.

And furthermore in all those subjects there is a lot of drek that doesn’t pass the smell test. Some of it is produced by the merely ignorant, others by the the actively deceptive. Some of it’s even been peer-reviewed, but most of the bad material I see cited in students papers is thinly disguised PR. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a double blind study in any of these fields.

It’s absolutely reasonable for me to inform my students that the references they’re citing aren’t worth the paper they are (or in many cases aren’t) printed on, and grade them appropriately.

P.S. I’m not a Dr., and I don’t play one on the Net.

That doesn’t mean “print == authoritative, it is to agree that properly educated people “will learn not to take any claim, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, at face value; but to consider the interests of the people who made the claim.” My point is that one has to consider not only the interests of the people making the claim but the ease with which unsupportable claims can be made in a particular source when evaluating its credibility.

(Looks like you have a second open-blockquote tag there instead of a close-blockquote.)