Thank you to everyone who attended our inaugural EKM Journal Club meeting. We were thrilled to see so many people out generating such a great discussion.

The format will be the same each month with a paper title distributed two weeks in advance, and then discussion at the meeting and then a follow up blog post to support ongoing online discussion (just add your thoughts as a comment to this post). Currently we are leaving the blog open to all, but if the majority of members prefer we can revisit this later on.

All attendees will be invites to become subscribers to the blog (and will then receive updates by e-mail) and you can also follow our Twitterfeed @TeachingNursing.

This week’s topic was the use of Wikipedia as a source of evidence. If you haven’t had a chance to read it, the article can be found here. Remember, you can add to the discussion here, just post a comment on your thoughts on these matters (click on comment on the left)!

Discussion

It was noted that Wikipedia reliability/validity research has tended to fall into one of two categories:

1. Studies comparing Wikipedia to other established peer reviewed sources.
2. Studies appraising Wikipedia articles for quality, or confidence in their evidence.

This paper falls into the later category, and those present were polled on their perceptions about the appropriateness of students using Wikipedia in academic work (see attached slides). Results were mixed:

• Not useful as an academic resource 43%
• OK for background, but not for citation in papers 29%
• Encourage them to use it 29%
• Inaccurate and misleading, avoid 0%

Several of those attending admitted to using Wikipedia as a tool to obtain accurate and updated information and primary references. Others argued that using Wikipedia as a source is problematic.

It was suggested, on occasion students may directly take from Wikipedia, rather than going to the primary references listed by Wikipedia i.e. sometimes, the primary source is not even consulted. There was agreement that peer reviewed publications remain the most reliable sources, however, there is a push towards incorporating technology and social media into the classroom.

It is not uncommon for textbooks to take three years to be published and sometimes the information within the textbook is dated upon publication. Wikipedia can present the most recent research and is continually updated. However, although generally reliable, because of its nature the information presented on Wikipedia can be incorrect or biased.

This brought up the important issue of undergraduate students developing the ability to critically appraise and discriminate the validity of sources. When a topic is searched for on Google, Wikipedia often appears first in the search results. However, this does not mean the information is the most reliable and it is important to be able to decipher between credibility and popularity. Use of Wikipedia in classes could be a good way to get students to consider the quality of the evidence presented in the entry. Alternatively, a student assignment could be to adopt a Wikipedia entry or correct one.

The push towards technology also presents the opportunity for creative uses of technology in the classroom such as podcasts, blogs and TED Talks. We need to explore how to best incorporate these sources of information in our teaching. We also need to explore how to maximize the opportunities of using these new forms of technology while being critical of their limitations. Adopting a health Wikipedia webpage as an assignment could be a helpful contribution to both the wiki-world and students’ understanding of source appraisal.

Wikipedia is not without its faults. One faculty member shared a story about an expert trying to share their knowledge on Wikipedia only to be denied because their opinion was contrary to the majority. When determining what information is acceptable, Wikipedia tends to rely on a majority rules standard.   Another faculty member mentioned that in the last few years Wikipedia has become more adept at presenting multiple opinions on topics, currently a limitation of textbooks. Wikipedia has also become more transparent by alerting readers when the information they are viewing needs additional sources or may be biased. A banner provides a warning at the top of the screen to relay this information. The article reports that this often happens when the topic is controversial.

We also discussed changes taking place with student-centred learning, in information holding and its dissemination. In the past, information was more unidirectional with experts delivering information to learners. The Internet is a limitless source of information and coupled with open-source learning access to information is more oopen than ever. In a world using social media for increasingly diverse uses, we need to learn how to manage this shift in power to the users,  while still maintaining academic integrity.

Appraisal of the Paper

Overall, the article earned an average rating from the audience. The author was commended on the originality and attempt to appraise quality of Wikipedia entries. The format of the paper made it hard for some to follow with one chart missing categories, a table with a format error, and others presenting findings in a confusing format. The methodology was a little unclear, particularly the selection methods for subjects to review. The use of a research quality validation tool to assess learning materials (e.g. textbooks) was also not explained, and its validity for this purpose seemed questionable. Lastly, the focus appeared more towards health rather than nursing and that could have generated different results. Overall this work was felt to be a very useful contribution to the knowledge in this area.

Another article, “You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates’ Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia, was also recommended and can be found here.

Additional Resources

Slides used at the club meeting: EKM Journal Club 1

Here is another useful paper that was discussed in the meeting:

You Just Type in What You Are Looking For”: Undergraduates’ Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia

Summary of reports of the accuracy of Wikipedia can be accessed here:

Thanks to everyone for attending and contributing to a great conversation. If you have any ideas or articles you would like us to cover in a Journal Club meeting please email bernie.garrett@nursing.ubc.ca or allana.hearn@nursing.ubc.ca The next EKM Journal Club meeting will take place on April 16^th. Everyone is welcome and stay tuned for the next article!