I teach English composition and literature at a community college in the Midwest. I have heard instructors discourage students from using Wikipedia, but I think it is a resource too valuable to bypass. For one thing, it is the only encyclopedic reference of its magnitude that is constantly monitored for currency, accuracy, and documentation. It is also the only resource covering controversial issues that confronts the controversies with active "talk" pages, enabling students to understand the scope and tone of the issue and to acquire a context for evaluating the information they find in the article itself. Perhaps most important, Wikipedia is an accessible forum of ongoing scholarship in which students can see good scholarship in practice and flawed scholarship corrected by peers.

Some educators warn students that articles can be vandalized, but they may fail to mention that there are many more everyday administrators and users who vigilantly clean up vandalism and error on these pages. A complaint I have heard, that "anyone can write anything on Wikipedia," not only absurdly oversimplifies of the ongoing process of developing this resource, but also implies there is something wrong with the idea of an intellectual commons in which students may aspire to participate if they learn the principles, ethics, and methods of scholarship.

As an instructor I teach my students how to use Wikipedia to launch and improve their research, how to read critically and evaluate all sources of information, and how properly to document every source, including Wikipedia itself.

--GregB (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)