Wikipedia was to me something like a direct knowledge pipeline. Without the intermediary of lectures, grades, or commutes (not to mention social interaction), a simple keyword search could offer an evening of discovery. 

When Wikipedia wasn’t particularly well-known, the (relatively) early adapters who made use of it suddenly became ultra-erudite flâneurs of the Interwebs (at least in their own minds), scholars of the finest grade among plebeian peers. I first experienced this in the late 2000s, though I’m pretty sure there are many of you who experienced these “powers” earlier.

Whereas “normal students” might have to visit the library for some information, Wikipedia gave resourceful students super powers in the ‘Language Arts,’ ‘Social Studies,’ or wherever else synthesizing coherent (enough) positions was demanded [1]. 

Even when the graders caught on to the fact that many students weren’t practicing research methods, but were just lazily repeating views they found on Wikipedia, cleverness found a way out:

It’s easy! Just because we aren’t allowed to cite Wikipedia doesn’t mean we can’t use Wikipedia’s citations! 

Scroll… scroll.. scroll..

Ahhh. I see! There we go, finding five ‘academic sources’ wasn’t so hard at all. Didn’t even have to go to the library. ^_^

 

 

Fast-forward to the Obama years. Going through school, Millennials, both Wiki-reading and not, had by-in-large failed to acquire skills in evaluating reason in arguments and the sources of evidence.

The growth of the Internet put in front of us the temptation for limitless knowledge. Without a cost? I, for one, donated to Wikipedia a couple of times in gratitude for the convenience and eye-opening infos it had allowed me to access.

Alas, I now realize the cost for relying heavily on Wikipedia was not just a matter of shekels. Many of us had already “paid” for Wikipedia our ability to criticially filter.  Trusting the smarties to sort out what was good and true, we relied on Wikipedia…

 

Read the rest of the article here