In this day and age of read/write web, there are a number of new web 2.0 tools that have the potential to transform learning. The rate and pace of change raises some interesting questions about which ‘horse’ do you select and will they be around for a long time.
For a reason, I can’t mention in this blog (you can ask!!), I have started to take an interest in Wikis as one example of a technology that has been around for sometime. I have had some discussions with people in education about Wikipedia that worry me and George Siemens’ conversations in his Learning Technologies Centre Research blog begin to articulate what the problem might be. ‘That the expert still lives in some ivory tower…address unknown! Some research suggest that Wikipedia entries in Science are just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (BBC News, Dec 2005). Can an experienced community of global peers be trusted!!
So what do we say when you hear that educational insitutions are now banning the use of Wikipedia?? In some cases the reasons are quite sound? ‘The kids simply don’t question the source!’. ‘They take for granted what is written?’ But is this Wikipedia’s fault and is this the right way to address issues such as information literacy!! What about other sources? It is the easiest and simplest route to ban it!! Or even better, give the kids an ‘F” for citing Wikipedia (Wikipedia, Dec 2006)!!
Wikipedia, itself has its own word of caution regarding use.
George contends that perhaps the best way for educators to respond is rather than banning Wikipedia, is to contribute towards it accuracy!! Which is where I think Wikis have significant potential in education and that peer production can be undertaken using web tools such as wikis for a whole range of learning activities.
I am sure we are going to hear more about this in the near future!!
3 Comments
I unashamedly use Wikipedia as an authority. There is no better place on the web to get a handle on a difficult concept as, (so far), all the information I have found there is written in an easy-to-understand way. That is probably one of the reasons it appeals to students. Other places might be more conventionally authoritative, but harder to wade through. I agree wholeheartedly with your idea of improving the quality but becoming a contributor - but I’d probably be looking up the wikipedia entry in order to improve the wikipedia entry - if you know what I mean.
my comment here turned into a post http://blog.brettmoller.com/?p=193
Thanks
Gary
Hi Garry,
Was just re-reading The Surgeon of Crowthorne, about the making of the OED. The surgeon, M.C. Minor, you might know, was in a lunatic asylum for the entire time he was contributing major portions of the definitions. What was that George said about contributing to Wikipedia? Well you’d have to admit, our educators are well qualified, so long as they don’t believe they’re the wardens. (a common mistake)
“The expert still lives in some ivory tower…address unknown!”
Nice. I still think its about inmates rather than experts. You should know some over at the groups’ asylum are getting a bit unruly, and talking about rearranging their cells. But I’m getting a bit worried. I think they’re plotting a breakout.
http://www.groups.edna.edu.au/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=11695
BTW, does that addressing system to the new community asylums (George’s experts’ towers) make any sense to the wardens around your place yet? The loons have had a good natter since Nov. It seems to be making sense to quite a few of them. Now i AM worried.
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] Wikipedia’s use in education continues to be controversial. I think that’s a pity, because the Wikipedia contains huge amounts of useful information, and - perhaps even more importantly - using it teaches very important lessons in the analysis of information sources. […]
Post a Comment