When most students hear “Wikipedia,” the reaction is immediate: don’t use it.
For years, we’ve been told that it’s unreliable, non-academic, and off-limits in serious research. But in one anthropology class, that assumption gets flipped entirely.
Instead of avoiding Wikipedia, students are asked to edit it.
Anthropology instructor Sarah Walker designed a class project that turns one of the internet’s most criticized sources into a hands-on tool for understanding misinformation, power, and who gets to shape history. Because Wikipedia is “edited by anybody, anywhere in the world,” Walker explains it gives “a snapshot of our cultural ideas, but also a snapshot of the distortions and misunderstandings of history, especially around Indigenous people.”
From Skepticism to Responsibility
As students begin working on the project, their attention turns from what they have heard about Wikipedia to how it actually functions.
Walker explains that students often believe something is true simply because it is written down. The project challenges that assumption directly by exposing just how inaccurate widely accessible information can be. As she puts it, “you can tell people till you’re blue in the face that history is a story and that what’s written isn’t always true, but they don’t really believe you until they see how wrong it is online.”
Once students begin editing, something shifts. Instead of passively consuming information, they become responsible for it. Walker has found that “if we all take action, we can fix this. We can go in and change it,” and when students realize they have that kind of agency, “their whole attitude toward Wikipedia shifts.”
When History Is Wrong Online
As students dig into Wikipedia pages, especially those related to Indigenous histories, they begin to notice patterns that go beyond simple mistakes.
They find distortions.
In some cases, major historical figures are misrepresented in ways that soften or erase violence. For example, students encountered confusion between Smohalla and Chief Joseph (Heinmot Tooyalakekt), a leader of the Nimiipuu. Joseph was often mischaracterized as a religious prophet rather than a political and military leader influenced by Smohalla’s teachings.
In others, entire narratives reflect colonial perspectives rather than Indigenous ones. These are not just minor wording issues. They are systemic.
Students compare what they find online with Indigenous-authored sources and are often shocked by the differences.
The realization is uncomfortable but important. What we often think of as “neutral” information is shaped by power.
Small Edits, Big Impact
Some of the most meaningful changes students make are surprisingly small.
Walker points to a simple but powerful example: changing “the Maya were a people” to “the Maya are a people.” While it may seem minor, she emphasizes that “the way you think about people is the way they manifest in your mind,” and using past tense can make it seem “like they’re gone.”
That shift from past to present tense challenges a deeper assumption that Indigenous cultures no longer exist. Language, students learn, carries weight.
Other edits are larger. Some students uncover major inaccuracies or missing context in entries about Indigenous leaders and communities. In one case, students examined how Kintpuash (Captain Jack), of the Modoc people, was incorrectly described online as having “committed suicide,” when historical evidence shows he was executed. In certain cases, correcting a page requires pushing back against long-standing narratives that have been repeated for years.
And that is not always easy.
Who Gets to Decide What’s “True”?
Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts. It is a community.
Students quickly discover that editing involves negotiation. Other editors may challenge changes, revert edits, or demand different types of sources. Some act as gatekeepers, protecting pages from vandalism but also sometimes resisting necessary updates.
Through this process, students learn that knowledge is not neutral. It is argued, defended, and shaped by people.
They also learn how to support their claims. As Walker explains, “if someone makes a claim and they don’t tell you why they think that, it’s the equivalent of me claiming, ‘there’s a unicorn outside and it’s yelling at me.’ It means nothing.”
Students learn to demand reasoning, to ask “why do you think that?” and to distinguish between claims and justified knowledge.
The Challenge of Indigenous Knowledge
One of the biggest tensions students encounter is between Indigenous knowledge systems and Western academic standards.
Wikipedia requires written, citable sources. But much Indigenous knowledge is oral, passed down through generations rather than published in academic journals.
This creates a barrier.
To navigate it, students seek out Indigenous scholars who are working within academic systems and publishing research that can be cited. In doing so, they discover a wider range of voices than they might have encountered otherwise.
They also begin to recognize how academic standards themselves can exclude certain forms of knowledge.
Rethinking What We “Know”
As the project continues, students start to question things they previously took for granted.
For example, many enter the class believing Oregon has nine tribes. In reality, there are many more, including tribes that are not federally recognized. As Walker clarifies, “the State of Oregon has nine reservations—that does not mean Oregon has nine tribes.”
Students also learn that many commonly used tribal names, such as “Nez Perce,” are exonyms, or names given by outsiders, while communities may refer to themselves using their own languages, such as Nimiipuu.
These realizations complicate simplified narratives and highlight the depth and diversity of Indigenous histories.
Students also examined the story of Chief Multnomah, often presented as a historical leader, and found it is largely rooted in myth rather than verifiable Indigenous history.
What This Has to Do with AI
The skills students develop in this project extend far beyond Wikipedia.
In an era where AI tools can generate answers instantly, the ability to question information is more important than ever. Walker notes that this kind of disinformation “has been going on forever, especially about Indigenous people,” and that AI is not creating the problem but accelerating it.
Rather than rejecting these tools, students are encouraged to use them critically.
Treat AI like a starting point, not a final answer.
Check sources. Verify claims. Ask questions.
A Skill That Lasts Beyond the Classroom
At its core, the Wikipedia project is not just about editing pages. It is about changing how students think.
Walker emphasizes this with a simple takeaway: “think for yourself.” When students learn how to get good information and evaluate it, they are better equipped to make decisions not just for themselves, but for their communities.
Rewriting the Narrative
The idea behind the project is simple but powerful.
If everyday people do not participate in shaping the information systems we rely on, those systems will continue to reflect the same limited perspectives.
But if students step in, question what they see, and contribute thoughtfully, those systems can change.
One edit at a time.
