Let’s Edit: Using Wikipedia Edit-a-thons as Vehicles for Information Literacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the integration of Wikipedia into information literacy instruction through the use of edit-a-thons, highlighting its potential despite historical skepticism from librarians. Wikipedia's mission aligns with librarianship’s core values of providing free access to information, yet its open-source nature challenges traditional notions of authority and reliability. The article advocates for leveraging Wikipedia as a tool for active learning, specifically to enhance students' understanding of the American College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) information literacy frames. By hosting edit-a-thons, librarians can engage students in hands-on activities that improve their skills in evaluating sources and understanding authority. The article provides practical recommendations for conducting successful edit-a-thons, including creating Edit Guides, embracing the social aspects of these events, and using Wikipedia-Integrated Outreach Dashboards for program evaluation. Ultimately, it argues that Wikipedia can significantly contribute to information literacy education and suggests strategies for librarians to effectively incorporate it into their instructional practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it