Please read the article by Doug Johnson. In light of what you learned from reading the Wikipedia article we read by Daniel Pink. Write in comments a few paragraphs on the issues that Johnson discussed. Be prepared to discuss with the group…
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
NYT > Education- After Criticism, the Administration Is Praised for Final Rules on Education Grants
- Two-Year Colleges, Swamped, No Longer Welcome All
- Arbitrator Said to Doze During Teacher’s Hearing
- States Compete for Federal School Dollars
- Job Woes Exacting a Heavy Toll on Family Life
- From Justice Kennedy, a Lesson in Journalism
- 25 Chicago Students Arrested for a Middle-School Food Fight
- In the Region | Connecticut: School Colors: Green and Greener
- New York Clinics See Few Crowds for Free Vaccine
- The Search: Degree Required, but You Don’t Have One
July 30, 2008 at 12:45 am
I feel the same way. I think that teaching the students how to use wikipedia and explain to them how it has been made is important. We discussed in our group the other day that wikipedia has a place in our school and our lives.
The wider scope that wikipedia is to touch upon is a huge part of why it is valuable. We are living in a changing world so it only makes sense that the wikipedia is changing with us. I like all the examples he gives of articles that you will not find in other encyclopedias.
July 30, 2008 at 12:46 am
From this article I actually checked the schrockguide.org site. I found this very helpful in providing some suggestions of activities that can assist students in learning about evaluating information on the web. I am sure I will look into this site in the future.
July 30, 2008 at 12:48 am
I liked this article and the continued controversy surrounding Wikipedia. I like the idea that “the voice of the common man is being heard and heeded as a source of authentic, reliable information.” What do “real” people have to say about a topic?
I would like to investigate further the “Talk page” and think that the concept that a person can learn more from an article surrounded in controversy by visiting said page and understanding why the issue is controversial is a great one.
The idea that junior high students can make Websites that look better than college professors says a lot about todays changing world and about how the internet and technology can really empower everyone to be an expert of the things they are interested in learning about. We as teachers should be encouraging this, not dismissing it as invalid information.
Can I have a more clear definition of what Web 2.0 is? Are there other Webs? or is that just the official name?
July 30, 2008 at 12:48 am
It was interesting to see that someone has actually taken the time to compare Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. The fact that they are relatively comparable does not surprise me in the least. I guess I do have faith, as the article by Pink talked about, that people will generally be honest.
It seems like a no-brainer that wikipedia is used so often because of the wide range in scope that it offers compared to other resources, and it was noted that it’s only a reference source and therefore should be used as such. That is to say, it should be used to get a general overview of a topic, and not as the authority on information. For what it was intended for then, it is fairly accurate, and it is a remarkable tool.
Also, it is the job of educators, parents etc. to teach kids how to be critical thinkers, and if this is the case, it should not be such an issue to let students use wikipedia. This does not mean students should necessarily use it as a reference, but they should know about it as a resource to start their research process.
July 30, 2008 at 12:49 am
In the article by Doug Johnson, he compares Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica. From the looks of things, Wikipedia is beating Britannica’s butt. Wikipedia has more articles and for most of the things, they even had the same information. So who is to say that Britannica is so much better than Wikipedia? Wikipedia seems to be more relevant to our every day lives. They have entries for things that we might need to just get a glimpse of info on like how to cure hiccups. Britannica might now have the definition of a Philly cheesesteak when you want a quick list of the ingredients. Like the article says, “It has up-to-date information on timely topics.”
The validity of Wikipedia is the major issue. I would bet that most people who edit the pages, are more an expert on those subject then we would think. “The voice of the common man, is being heard and heeded as a source of authentic, reliable information.” The common man should have a voice and it should mean something. Wikipedia is an outlet for us to be able to share what we know with the world.
July 31, 2008 at 10:57 pm
My favorite part of the article was “When Nature magazine reported a study late in 2005 that showed Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia were comparatively accurate in their respective science entries.” This shows that it is accurate and it also has more articles than Britannica. What I also like is the random topics about wikipedia. I always will just type something in like for an example that the article uses “Bill Gates house”. That is the kind of stuff that I always use for Wikipedia but now I am pretty positive that it is accurate in more intellectual items.
July 31, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I think Doug is right on the money! Never should we use one source as the be all end all, and Wikipedia is no different. However, there has been reliable studies that show Wikipedia has the same accuracy as other sources. I found it interesting how he cited a Nature study which compared the accuracy of Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica. They were basically the same! It might be interesting for there to be more studies comparing different sources of knowledge.
I am interested in the Shrock guide not only because can it help clear up accuracy on Wikipedia, it can help students become better researchers in general.
Finally, I liked the comparison Doug made between the number of entries on Encyclopedia Britannica to the number on Wikipedia. It’s cool that people can post what they think is important knowledge worth contributing compared to a few men and women in suits who sit around a long table and decide which “knowledge” should be broadcast.
July 31, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I see wikipedia as crucial in the development of ’21st Century Information Fluency’ for our students. Not only does it provide a wider scope and up-to-date information on topics, it promotes critical evaluation. For, as Doug Johnson points out, it notes information that is controversial and also allows for a chance to understand the intricacies of the controversy. In a day and age where truth is very relevant to the individual, I see such a tool as very helpful in allowing students understand the differing viewpoints that ‘truth’ has to offer.
Wkipedia also offers a chance for the ‘common man’ to be heard. This is an encouraging thought, I believe, for our students. For, this lessens the gap between the ‘prestigious’ and the ‘ordinary’. I believe that this can provoke the idea that our students can make a difference and they can be a voice of the future.