This activity helps students explore how Wikipedia articles are created and how different historical narratives influence the way the past is presented. Through debate and source analysis, students develop critical thinking, argumentation, and teamwork skills while learning about Wikipedia’s rules of neutrality and reliability.

Objectives:
– To understand how Wikipedia’s editing mechanisms work and which groups influence historical content
– To critically analyse the neutrality and reliability of historical information
– To develop the skills of argumentation and teamwork
– To develop the awareness of different historical narratives
– To learn about source verification methods and Wikipedia’s rules for editing articles

Methods of work:
– Teamwork
– Simulation debate
– Analysis of source materials
– Argumentation exercises before the debate
– Moderated closing discussion

  1. Preparation for the debate (15 minutes)

Division of roles

Pupils are divided into four groups, each taking on a different role:

  • Supporters of the German point of view – argue in favour of the German narrative about the history of Gdańsk and other contentious issues. They focus on the sources presented in the text Games with history on Wikipedia.
  • Polish patriots – defend the Polish historical interpretation, taking into account facts and an emotional approach to history. They use the Polish sources referred to in the above-mentioned text.
  • Pragmatists – aim to edit articles in line with the prevailing historical sources, taking care to ensure academic standards and conformity with the scholarly studies available in the accompanying text.
  • Wikipedia administrators – control the debate, remind everyone of Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality and reliable sources, evaluate the validity of the arguments used.

Analysis of source materials and preparation of arguments

  1. Each group receives the materials mentioned in the text of the Games with history on Wikipedia, including illustrations and links to help the paticipants understand the topic of the debate. Students should carefully analyse the content provided and prepare arguments in line with their roles.
  2. Members of each group divide the responsibilities:
    • Source analyser – looks for key information in the material.
    • Person in charge of argumentation – formulates the main points of the debate.
    • Person in charge of counter-argumentation – prepares answers to possible objections raised by opponents.
    • Person responsible for coherence – makes sure that arguments are presented in a logical and clear manner.
  1. Each group prepares a minimum of four arguments and potential counter-arguments.
  2. Groups draw up a plan for their speeches, determining the order of speakers and the method of presentation.
  3. Wikipedia administrators compile a list of Wikipedia’s rules and plan questions for each group to check the compliance of statements with the policy of neutrality.
  1. At the end of the preparation stage, each group carries out an internal simulation – a short rehearsal of the debate in their group.

2 Debate (30 minutes)

Stage 1: Opening of the debate (5 minutes)

The moderator introduces the topic of debate: ‘Can Wikipedia be an entirely neutral source of historical knowledge or will it always be the battlefield of different narratives?’. Each group has 1-2 minutes to present their position. Wikipedia administrators verify whether the groups formulate their arguments in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules.

Stage 2: Argumentation of the groups (15 minutes

Each group presents arguments, referring to the source materials from the text read. Other groups can ask questions and challenge the arguments put forward. Wikipedia administrators ensure that the policies of reliability and neutrality are respected, intervening when arguments are based on unverified sources. The moderator pays attention to the merits of the debate, encouraging reference to the sources provided.

Stage 3: Open discussion (10 minutes)

  • All groups are free to debate, confronting their positions.
  • The moderator guides the discussion, paying attention to the culture of speech and reminding participants to provide evidence.
  • Groups can refer to their opponents’ arguments, challenge the sources used by them or supplement their own positions with new data.
  1. Summary and reflection (10 minutes)
  • The moderator summarises the main arguments presented during the debate, indicating which narratives prevailed.
  • Students share their reflections:
  • Should Wikipedia strive for complete neutrality?
  • Is this at all possible?
  • What mechanisms could enhance the reliability of historical content?
  • Wikipedia administrators evaluate each group, indicating whether it has complied with Wikipedia’s rules.
    • Discussion on the impact of disinformation on the Internet – what mechanisms can be used to detect and eliminate it?
    • Analysis of the difficulties in argumentation – which issues were the most difficult to defend?
    • Students identify the three most important conclusions of the debate.

Supporting materials:

Text Games with history on Wikipedia – including illustrations, links and excerpts from historical articles presenting different narratives.

Wikipedia’s editing rules:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV) – articles should present the topic in an impartial manner, taking into account different points of view.
  • Verifiability – any information should be supported by a reliable source.
  • No author’s own opinion – editors are not allowed to introduce their own interpretations; they can only cite existing sources.
  • Consensus – disputed edits require discussion and agreement between editors.

Examples of controversial historical entries in Wikipedia:

  • Article on the Warsaw Uprising – disputes over the number of victims and the sense of the uprising.
  • History of Gdańsk – narratives change depending on the nationality of editors, Polish or German.
  • The Cold War – differences in the interpretation of causes and consequences in the English- and Russian-language editions.

Extracts analysing the history of Gdańsk – a comparison of Wikipedia content in different languages, an analysis of the changes made to articles and the impact of politics on the editing of historical content.

Evaluation sheet

For students:

  1. How would you rate your involvement in the debate? (1-5)
  2. Did you feel well prepared for the debate? (Yes/No)
  3. How would you rate your group’s argumentation? (1-5)
  4. How do you rate the argumentation of other groups? (1-5)
  5. What was the most difficult part of the debate for you?
  6. What lessons have you learnt for the future in terms of source analysis and argumentation?

For teachers:

  1. Did students demonstrate the knowledge of the source material? (Yes/No)
  2. How would you rate the students’ level of argumentation? (1-5)
  3. Did students comply with Wikipedia’s neutrality policy? (Yes/No)
  4. How would you rate the groups’ engagement level? (1-5)
  5. What can be improved in the next debate?
  6. Did the debate achieve its educational objectives? (Yes/No)