An interesting article on using Wikipedia to teach writing. Thoughts?
Good read. I've always been amused by the wiki-haters that refuse to acknowledge anything from Wikipedia as relevant. While I understand the concern regarding source verification, malicious tampering, etc. and wouldn't use Wikipedia as a sole source of information for something critically important (like a research project), I have found more often than not that the information in Wikipedia is as accurate as necessary for my general needs. More importantly I have found the information generally in line with other sources in my area of study (religion). I think this fellow's approach will help students understand the value, and risks, of not only Wikipedia but of a collaborative effort. And that has broad value in "real life" once these folks are no longer students.
I think it is a great idea for the exposure to audience if nothing else. I believe students will learn to grow a very thick skin as well as learn how to read through the noise for the useful criticism. The online world can be cruel. Certainly just as cruel as an editor and/or publisher.
As far as Wikipedia as a reliable source of information? Meh. I use it all the time. Do I consider it the end all be all of accuracy? Certainly not. It does, however, make an excellent jumping point. To deny it as a source is ridiculous. It should not be your only source, but I see no reason why students should not be allowed to use it.
For that matter, any single source is questionable.
Interesting read. I find myself using Wikipedia all the time. Is it my only source? No, but when you can research ANYTHING because of the masses of information, it does help as a good starting point. I also find that most of the articles contain excellent footnotes of you want to delve into the info stream a little deeper.
Recently my in-laws gave us a World Book Encyclopedia. My first thought was: Why? Dead tree research books are obsolete. It was a 1995 edition, and its information was already sadly out of date with no way to upgrade. It has no hyperlinks to cross reference information. Plus it didn't cover any D&D subjects or individual Star Trek episodes. Shocking lacks. Plus it takes up valuable library space.
It was a 1995 edition, and its information was already sadly out of date with no way to upgrade.
This is a big strength of Wikipedia over books.
One of the comments on the article just surprised me.
My students are warned that any Wiki sites are absolutely forbidden. We have a hard enough time getting them to understand how to find reliable, authoritative sites, much less allowing/encouraging them to use open, unreliable sites. The Wikipedia claim is that they correct misinformation that they find has been put up on the site, but I have found that to be haphazard at best. I have found entries that had serious errors that were on there for a long time. I didn't change them for two reasons: I wanted to see if Wiki or someone else would actually make the corrections, and I felt that students should not be using the sites in the first place. My students are even required to visit LIBRARIES and use HARD COPY sources (what a concept!), and I limit the number of ANY kind of computer sources because I still believe (as dated as this may sound) that there is more to be found OFF the computer than people give credit for. I'd much rather my students be sure they have good stuff than depend on iffy "facts"...
First of all, did this person even read the article, or did she just read the title and click reply? I mean, come on! The article has nothing to do with using Wikipedia as a source. It's about students updating Wikipedia and being exposed to a public audience. Also, just because students are updating Wikipedia doesn't mean that they aren't taking advantage of the school library. Finally, this instructor finds all electronic resources suspect? I'd like to ask, "Does that include resources like JSTOR and Project Gutenberg?"
Personally, I think there's great value in the library. However, just like anything, it has its limits. For one, if the library has limited hard copy sources on the subject you're interested in, it can be about as useful as talking to someone on the street. Sure, you might be able get what you need through Interlibrary Loans. However, if you don't even know where to start, a fat lot of good that will do you.
Grognardism at its best.
Grognardism at its best.
I can just see the monks about 500 years ago:
Ehh? Guttenberg? Who would need mass-produced books? They're ugly! They have no illuminations! And who's going to read them? The peasants? There isn't a big enough market for mass-produced books! And anyone can print anything they like? How will the Mother Church maintain standards if book making is taken out of the scriptorium? It will lead to wrong thinking and heresy I tell you! No novice monk of mine will ever read a book printed on movable type, I can tell you that much!
Where else could I find that on this day in1894 in Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, Coca-Cola is sold in bottles for the first time?
|
Grognardism at its best.I can just see the monks about 500 years ago:
Ehh? Guttenberg? Who would need mass-produced books? They're ugly! They have no illuminations! And who's going to read them? The peasants? There isn't a big enough market for mass-produced books! And anyone can print anything they like? How will the Mother Church maintain standards if book making is taken out of the scriptorium? It will lead to wrong thinking and heresy I tell you! No novice monk of mine will ever read a book printed on movable type, I can tell you that much!
~sigh~
To the OP: Thanks for sharing the link. Wikipedia won´t go away if the scientific community ignores it, so using it to teach the students writing and dealing with criticism on their writing is probably the better way to go. If better articles for Wikipedia are a by-result of this, so much the better.
I understand the concern about using Wikipedia in a scientific context (even if it is only school level scientific), but outright banning it seems akin to shooting yourself in the foot for fear of slipping on ice. Wikipedia or similar sources play a big role in todays information society, and instead of banning it, teachers and professors should teach their students how to use it critically and with an eye towards its weaknesses. What is wrong about saying: Use it, but don´t stop there. Go into a library and look up the topic in books additionally - and show me a photocopy of the pages afterwards (if the teacher is paranoid about cheating). Most wiki entries these days have quotes, links and sources for their topics mentioned, so what is wrong about using it as a starting point to get a quick overview - which is Wikipedias strength anyway.
Stefan