I still encounter educators who block student access to Wikipedia because it is "created by amateurs without peer review". (In fact, it is created by a wide audience, including many content experts, and the peer review process is so dynamic that some entries are frozen from time to time when the edits become too hectic.)

I wonder how many of these same teachers block access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), viewed by some as the definitive dictionary of the English language.

Probably none.

But, by the criteria used to block Wikipedia, the OED should be blocked. It was born out of pure pandemonium. The OED was the work of hundreds of volunteers from all over the English-speaking world who submitted entries that were compiled to form the first edition in the 1920's. The tradition continues today as a look at the contributors to the latest edition attests (http://www.oed.com/about/advisers.html). Just as with Wikipedia, entries are donated by people who are passionate about certain words, and want to insure that each new edition of the OED reflects both the current and historical meaning of the entries.

You'll see a lot of PhD's contributing to the OED, as you will for Wikipedia. You'll also see passionate laypeople contributing to both works. So why should teachers accept the OED but reject Wikipedia? Perhaps it is because they didn't know the origins of OED, but more likely it is because they see the concept of an online encyclopedia that can be edited by the users as a threat to the hierarchical structure of knowledge that formed the basis of education in the Middle Ages.

When Bacon said “knowledge is power,” most forget the context. He went on to say, “Nothing destroys authority so much as the unequal and untimely interchange of power pressed too far, and relaxed too much.” Wikipedia puts power in the hands of students, and, to a great extent, so does the Web in general. If students take learning into their own hands, then how can we prepare them for high-stakes tests? Oh my.

When I'm engaged in a phone call with someone, I'm usually also on-line. If there is a piece of information I need in the conversation (how many children are in Chicago Public Schools?), I don't have to guess. I can go to the CPS web site and find out right away. This capability allows conversations to move to higher ground and not get bogged down with unanswered questions.

I visited an English class in an Indiana high school where every student had this kind of access. The conversation being mediated by the teacher was beyond anything I'd ever seen in high school. It reminded me of some classes I took in college. These students weren't “cheating” or looking for material they could read out loud as if it was their own; they were exploring other perspectives on the topic on their own. The class was orderly, and 100% on task.

Going back to Wikipedia, I find it to be a valuable resource – one I want to rely on. Consequently, I often check out entries for subjects I know something about to see if there are errors. Generally the content is quite good in my areas of interest, but there are errors in every reference work.

I actually see the occasional error as a good thing. Students need to learn how to verify the information they get from various sources. Do you trust what you read in the newspaper? Does the ten-o-clock news get it right? We are surrounded by multiple perspectives of the same events every day; how do we get children to learn how to discern the truth?

And, while we're at it, how accurate are the textbooks you use every day?