The Book Stops Here…
Jimmy Wales wanted to build a free encyclopedia on the Internet. So he raised an army of amateurs and created the self-organizing, self-repairing, hyperaddictive library of the future called Wikipedia…
Read the article from Wired Magazine about Wikipedia. Then visit Wikipedia and search on topics of interest. Compare what you find with other online sources such as Britanica Online. Write a response to the article and to the idea of Wikipedia. Do you believe it is a valid source for research and for use in education. Why or why not…
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
NYT > Education- White House Begins Campaign to Promote Science and Math Education
- Sports of The Times: Instead of Firing Coach, Northeastern Ends the Program
- Demonstration at U.C. Santa Cruz Ends Peacefully
- U. of Nebraska Defeats Tighter Limits on Stem Cell Research
- A Crown Jewel of Education Struggles With Cuts
- Regents Raise College Tuition in California by 32 Percent
- University Weighs Tighter Limits on Stem Cell Research
- Teachers at Some Low-Performing Schools Get Bonuses
- Gateses Give $290 Million for Education
- Learning to Teach to Bridge the Achievement Gap
July 26, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. I think it is great to have a technology such as the Wiki that allows non-academic people to post information on their particular subject area. There are many areas where the academia view does not really fit.
I do use Wikipedia when I am trying to get a quick view of an area, but do understand there is a chance of the information not being credible. If I was required to provide a bibliography of my resources for a paper/presentation, then I do not use Wikipedia, but research until I can come up with more credible sources.
July 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The article on wikipedia opened my eyes to something I knew very little about. I like the idea. I think that it has great uses in today ever changing world. I use public bathroom too! As far as an educator I think it is important to explains the makings of wikipedia to students. I think you can’t throw out the Britannica and Encarta, use them all. Sometimes one will be better than the other. My thought is constantly on all the smart people out there that may not hold that PhD but are no less intelligent, there life path just took them somewhere else. I will continue to use wikipedia and encourage my students to check out it and possible compare.
If I want a simple definition I might go to Encarta but if I want more than that (which I usually do) I will go to wikipedia! I really like the idea of all the contributor, not just one scholarly person.
July 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I don’t think that Wikipedia is a valid source for research because of the problem of citation. We use citations in research so that others reading our work can verify and judge sources and their authors, but the anonymity of Wikipedia makes that difficult to impossible.
Wikipedia could be used in education to point out the different types of sources (e.g., amateur produced vs. expert produced, peer-reviewed vs. non-peer-reviewed, primary source vs. secondary source) but the same criticism applies to its use in education as to use its in research. Having said that, though, I have gone to Wikipedia when I needed information to use in class (number of cell phone users in the US, for example) when that information was not the main topic of the course.
But Wikipedia can be useful for the list of references found at the bottom of the page, enabling further research by looking at those resources. And for searches in popular culture Wikipedia is often one of the only online choices.
July 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Wikipedia is a valid source of research. So is your next door neighbor. So is your family doctor. But each source has to be evaluated individually. Your doctor may be a reliable source if the subject is influenza, but maybe not if the subject is classic rock. Wikipedia can be very valuable and informative, but it can be misused. In fact, it’s easy to misuse. When people bestow more credibility on an entry than it deserves, they are misusing the source. Part of research is source evaluation. But sources aren’t just valid or invalid. There are many subtle layers in between. Wikipedia is mostly reliable, but not always technically precise. One should also know that information in Wikipedia can be wrong outright. So, a good habit to get into when using Wikipedia is to verify the information from another source.
July 26, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I found “The Book Stops Here…” a very informative read about the background, the past, the present, and the future of Wikipedia. In our current education system, I have witnessed this resource as being viewed as not credible/reliable. Which is understandable, when considering the fact that we are trying to educate our students to be informed, find credible support for their arguments, and to follow a formal review process. Still, I find that the author of this article provides a very insightful conclusion about the validity of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is alive and it “will never be finished”. In the 21st century, my concept of valid information is evolving and I am also seeing how knowledge is evolving. Consequently, there is a need for less finality and rather for ideas to evolve, change, and be discussed. Wikipedia is the epitome of this.
Therefore, I believe that as an educator I must help my students understand Wikipedia as a resource (its background, how it works, etc), but also use it as a tool for them to realize the evolving world/age we live in.
July 26, 2008 at 5:32 pm
When it comes to Wikipedia and using it in an education setting I am kind of on the fence. Before reading the article, “The Book Stops Here,” I didn’t realize there was such a checking system for what is posted on their. It seems like it is pretty well monitored, and if something is put on their that does not make sense or is inappropriate, it will probably be taken off fairly shortly.
I think that as a broad search and not trying to get to concise of a search then Wikipedia is OK. In education, it definitely should not be the one and only source of information. I think there are some “experts” out there that probably have put their mark on some topics but how do you really know? It does not tell you the authors background on their. Some people can sound really smart without really knowing what they are talking about. Like the author of the article said, some people do not find it credible because there is no formal review process. The author also talked about not having bias on the posts on Wikipedia. On hot topics like abortion I think it is hard to write something generic without showing a hint of bias.
July 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I love wiki and how it is “anti-elitist. It is quick information and gives you more of a summary to see if you are interested in the topic and then you can research it more. Even though it isn’t done by scholars, wiki is edited by so many people my guess is that 90% of the content is accurate. It seems pretty rare when the information isn’t accurate and usually when it is it will get corrected.
July 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I think that Wikipedia can be very useful- it just depends on the objectives of the user. I have used it in the past to help me get a brief overview of topics, and to give me ideas for key words etc. that I would do well to keep in mind when researching for the topics I am interested in. I have always taken it with a grain of salt though, that there are people that are not necessarily experts, writing about the topics. This is not to say that the information is any less accurate than if an expert did in fact write the information, but the review process is lacking on wikipedia.
As I scrolled back and forth between wikipedia and the britannica online, I did not find much disparity on the topic I looked up (photosynthesis) which in my mind helped to give credibility to the information that was on wikipedia.
Not all topics available on wikipedia are as complete though, and it is somewhat up to the contributor as to what information about a topic/person etc. is available. While I think this makes for a much more interesting read, and if I am looking for information on a personal level I prefer wikipedia, I would not feel comfortable citing the information for research.
Overall, I think the contributors of wikipedia are doing a wonderful and noble thing, and hope that the principles of neutrality and good faith win out over the troublemakers that pose a threat to wikipedia and other such public resources.
July 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I find it interesting that “Guardians of the knowledge cathedral” – librarians, scholars, academics and the lot don’t care for Wikipedia because it makes them seem obsolete as experts on a particular subject.
I like the idea that wikipedia is a “heartening effort in digital humanitarianism.” Despite what the “Guardians” think, I agree that it is at least an attempt to give some power to the masses to contribute to the mass of knowledge available to all. I think it gives folks something to be proud of, and a reason for them to constantly seek out new and more accurate information. In my opinion, if this concept of an ever-evolving encyclopedia is inspiring people to learn more, educate themselves and others, I say more power to it!
“Instead of one smart guy, Wikipedia draws on thousands of fairly smart guys.” – This is a cool idea to let everyone participate and be a semi-expert on a particular subject- I see nothing wrong with that.
Along those lines, the idea of only having on opinion or voice on what is accurate information and knowledge seems a little too restricting for me. And in a way, Wikipedia is peer-reviewed, it is just reviewed by a different level of peers.
I like the idea that wikipedia is something that is self-repairing and almost alive. Well, not actually alive, but it is created in an organic manner that is “fast, fluid, fixable, and free.”
“On Wikipedia, nobody has to know you’re a sophomore.” – Lord Emsworth
“Citizen editors don’t need to make an entry flawless. They just need to make it better.” Awesome idea – that could easily be translated to a classroom philosophy.
“Wikipedia will never be finished.”
And finally, what in the world kind of nickname is “God-King” anyways? it seems to be missing the point of what Whales was intending to do.
July 26, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I enjoyed the article written by Daniel because it brought up some interesting points that I hadn’t considered regarding Wikipedia. I have always heard from most people, like the paper points out, that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for academic purposes because it is “not a peer reviewed.” I never use Wikipeida, in fact if I Google something and Wikipedia provides a hit for the subject matter I skip over it every time.
However, there are some benefits to Wikipedia that may make it a better choice for educational purposes. First, it stays super current. People who post content are typically highly invested/motivated in what they contribute, so they are constantly adding and changing their information. Also, because they are motivated to keep their information “accurate” if a vandal destroys or changes information, quickly it is reverted back. Also it’s free and uses less resources than the typical enormous volume of encyclopedia.
I agree that one with a PhD is NOT the only expert, everyone is an expert in something. And, I appreciate a system where a variety of people from different walks of life can contribute information to a global purpose. Using Wikipedia in a classroom offers a great deal of teachable moments as you explore how to critical analyze what you are reading to teaching acceptance and diversity.
I researched surfing, and while both Britanica and Wikipedia had different content on the subject I preferred the writing style of the Britanica article. Wikipedia had more content about surfing in general, including the science and behind swells, and Britanica had more about the history of surfing.
July 26, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I am not a Wikipedia fan, however I have used it as a launch pad. The article by D. Pink gave me information to help me grapple with the pros and cons of Wikipedia. I was pleased to see the levels of “authority” that were in place. Knowing that they could lock a site gave me more confidence in it. Learning about the vandalism that takes place confirmed my belief that my children can not use it.
Is the information good? Yes and no. I am sure some of it is above par and I am sure some of it is below. It isn’t something I would use as a reference. So why bother spending time there? I have 2 reasons I will use it: (1) look at the links and references the wiki article refers to – it can be a great reference librarian if the site is really put together by informed people. (2) If you can’t find information on your topic anywhere else, you may find it there.
It is a great idea – knowledges from the masses to the masses. However I still believe that before using that information it should be validated. Adults and children need to understand this. If they don’t, the spread of misinformation will run rampid. Should the wiki program validate or should individual be trusted to validate?
I liked the idea of a edit version and a stale version of Wiki. Safer for kids.
Interesting article I read : http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i10/10a03101.htm
July 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm
In education . . . . . teach them to validate what they are reading. With all the information that is available now (wiki included) kids need to know how to sift through.
I would teach that it is not a valid source for formal research. However for a casual look, or to find a starting place . . . that is a good use. Also, it is a great place to teach them to contribute to the community of knowledge. (constructively not destructively)