Comments on: Yet Another Reason We Should Be Teaching, Not Blocking, Wikipedia

By: Daniel Livingstone

Daniel Livingstone — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:49:45 +0000

The Physics book errata list does look pretty bad… mind you, its from a book of almost 800 pages, so the error count per page isn’t too bad. Its also from a book almost 10 years old.

The second edition (2004) appears to have fixed a few of these issues.

A clear benefit of web-resources is the ability to fix errors when discovered – once its it print, you have to rely on errata lists (if given). Does make a good case for getting as much feedback before going into print with something at technical as a college level physics textbook.

By: Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade? | Hazman Aziz

Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade? | Hazman Aziz — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:26:03 +0000

[...] Yet Another Reason We Should Be Teaching, Not Blocking, Wikipedia …entry in Wikipedia had almost 2 million views and was the seventh most visited (and, really, second most visited in terms of content) article on the site. John McCain’s had 1.1 million. Hillary Clinton, who apparently more people “know” about, had about 422,000. In those same three weeks, the Wikipedia home page got over 140 million views. The p… Weblogg-ed – Mar 10, 2008 11:00 PM [...]

By: Chris Betcher

Chris Betcher — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:05:32 +0000

I agree… I used to play in an underground sort of band back in the 80s, and of course there was no mention of the band anywhere on the web. I went to Wikipedia, wrote an *accurate* article about it (I know it’s accurate because it happened to me!) and posted to the wiki.

I think that’s about as democratic a process as you can get… our little band is listed in the world’s biggest knowledge repository… I don’t have to convince anyone that we were worthy of being added… i just added it.

So there!

BTW, the band was The Jellybabies

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:03:20 +0000

I would like to add this tidbit after all the discussion about information validity etc.

I added information into Wikipedia that is available in NO OTHER source. So few people know the information that it would probably be lost if I did not add it.

Is it important? Perhaps not to you, but perhaps to someone. But it is detail about a place that would be lost to all history if someone didn’t place it somewhere.

Jimmy Wales says the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect the sum of all human knowledge (wow!).

What I know is that if a student wanted to know about my place/information, s/he MUST come to Wikipedia.
Hmmmmm….

By: Robin Heyden

Robin Heyden — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:26:24 +0000

This is great, James. Just the sort of in-the-trenches example we need.

I’m also thinking that perhaps the most useful element of the Obama article, from a teaching and learning point of view, is the banner up at the top of the article which says: “This page has been protected from editing until March 14,or until disputes have been resolved”. What better way to learn about the power of participation, the editorial process, critical thinking, and the whole concept of working toward the truth than this? The lock, placed by theWikipedia editors, stands witness to the furious activity going on at this portion of the site during Obama’s campaign for the presidency. Teachers could ask students to come back to the site daily to check its status, read the discussion, and review the history tab (What’s changed? By whom? Why?). Students could blog about the campaign and about the way the information is changing in the Wikipedia article in realtionship to the campaign.

By: The Hows and Whys of Wikipedia in the Classroom | Techno-Rhetoric Cafe

The Hows and Whys of Wikipedia in the Classroom | Techno-Rhetoric Cafe — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:37:24 +0000

[...] was reading Will Richardson (of Webblogg-ed)’s post supporting Wikipedia in the classroom when one of my colleagues, a new teacher, asked me about how I used Wikipedia in my research. So, [...]

By: Meredith Broderick

Meredith Broderick — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:49:23 +0000

I had a professor in college for an advanced class in history for Historical Method, thing was it was my first history class.
The class was structured back in 80′s to make you questions supposedly ” Reliable ” sources.
The professor himself was pretty brilliant and not radical, but he saw all “reliable sources of information, particularly where history was concerned as in need of further “verification” or at least close enthusiastic examination.
This professor would set us loose in a library of Microfiche with a few sentences or blurb from a “reliable” source to verify or get a broader view of a set of stated facts. Then write a weekly paper on why you found and share it next week.
It was the damndest thing for people who think “knowing, ” is learning, or that the published word especially if it is published in a “reliable’ place as gospel (actually you can take them for gospel, considering historically speaking the gospels them selves cannot be Verified all but John Originating from a source called Q, even though they are published in a reputable place)
Historical Method 02 Just turned over the whole vegetable cart. These gruesome exercises made me see the published word in a way that made me question the idea of “reliable source”

To now relate this rant to Wikipedia: Wikipedia is very often “reliable” and it seems to me that one of its strengths is that we don’t take everything as “ gospel” as some of it is “gossip”
The other thing this professor taught me is indeed some of history has it’s origin “ gossip” and “ rumor”

The real strength is perhaps that the collaborative component makes Wikipedia open to challenge and interpretation. Not a source of “ divine truth” but a way to share information, with an eye towards truth and verifiable fact. I learned in Historical Method 02 that is the best you can hope for.

By: Brad W

Brad W — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:56:27 +0000

You are absolutely right about the popularity of Wikipedia among students and the potential and possibility offered to us educators. Such a powerful and impressive teaching tool, it is a shame that so many of our colleagues discourage its use and miss the opportunity themselves of contributing to the body of information, and helping to ensure ‘accuracy’.

By: jeffguthrie.com » Blog Archive » Wikipedia

jeffguthrie.com » Blog Archive » Wikipedia — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:17:28 +0000

[...] Yet Another Reason We Should Be Teaching, Not Blocking, Wikipedia [...]

By: Week 8 Blog #3 « Jeron’s Weblog

Week 8 Blog #3 « Jeron’s Weblog — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:42:40 +0000

[...] I couldn’t help myself to go back to Will Richardson’s blog this week when I saw his post on [...]

By: azimmer

azimmer — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:03:24 +0000

After readin the initial post I decided to go to the Obama entry in Wikipedia and found it “protected” until March 14.
Any idea what that is all about? McCain and Clinton were not “protected. That in itself would be a great lesson and discussion to pursue.

By: Lance Williams

Lance Williams — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:38:30 +0000

Coming from a high school where my teachers would forbid us from even thinking about visiting the website Wikipedia, to a college where we had to make our own Wikipedia account I can personally say that I think Wikipedia is a great tool. Before having to make an account to Wiki I would never visit the site because of what my high school teachers told me about it, but now that I have explored it I find it very useful. Whenever I need facts cleared up on a person or even a definition word I can go to the Wiki and find that information. Like you said if we are going to say do not use Wiki becaues of the fasle information on it we might as well stop using the entire internet because there will always be some kind of error everywhere we look. As a teacher I will personally allow my students to use Wikipedia, but warn them about the troubles it may cause in misleading information.

By: Doug Holton

Doug Holton — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:48:25 +0000

Just use the static version of Wikipedia with articles selected for school children (there is a DVD version, too): http://schools-wikipedia.org/
I have more info on it here:
http://edtechdev.blogspot.com/2007/07/wikipedia-dvd-for-schools.html

That takes away the problems with the wikipedia site itself – bad anonymous admins and editors, vandalism which leads to Wikipedia blocking entire school districts and regions, etc.
People forget that Wikipedia itself (the admins) blocks many more schools (and entire countries) than the other way around.

By: Louise Maine

Louise Maine — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:00:33 +0000

After reading your post and seeing the Physics book errors, I decided to find the errors in one of the textbooks I use(d). Astounding!

We use the books, wikipedia, and many sources for background.

Critical assessment of sources and using information to generate new content allows us to keep this all in perspective.

By: Keri

Keri — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:50:46 +0000

After reading the RSS feed that I got regarding this post I decided that I wanted to leave a comment, because I feel that if taught how to use it correctly Wikipedia can be a useful source . . . so I tried to click on it but apparently my school blocks Weblogg-ed . . . lovely!