Wikis?
Point/Counterpoint: Are Wikis Worth the Time? By Dean Shareski and Carol Ann K. Winkler.
1. In researching Wikipedia in light of this article, I first explored a topic that I am very knowledgeable about: the Art of Living Foundation. I have been involved with this organization for 11 years and am very familiar with all aspects of it. The first thing that struck me about this entry was the tags bannered across the top. Since I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia, I had not come across these notices before, and it gave me a feel for the malleable and interactive qualities of this database. The first banner posts a suggestion that this topic be merged with another, which is the identical subject under a different name. I wondered how many times information is repeated because posters are using different titles and are unaware of other references. But because the system is open to continual correction (or, at least, alteration), when such instances occur – as evidenced here – they are brought to light. The next two banners were of a policing nature: the article needed to be “wikified”, or formatted according to the guidelines, and, appropriate references were lacking. Finally, a small tag proclaims that, “the neutrality of this article is disputed,” with a link to a discussion.
This last notice was understandable after I read the contents, for most of the information had been more or less lifted from the Art of Living promotional materials that I have heard a million times from within the organization. The discussion about this neutrality issue, however, was disappointing. It consisted of just three posts of a few lines or words each – none of which, of course, being elaborated upon or developed. Perhaps this was a relatively recent addition, or perhaps there really isn’t that much interest in this particular issue of neutrality. For all intents and purposes, though the information comes from within the organization and is not as critical as some would expect from a scholarly article, it does explain in as general of terms as possible what the organization is about. I found nothing particularly laudatory about the presentation of materials (moving into my “critical” stance as much as possible from my familiar position).
Another thing I found interesting is that the sub-headings within the article seemed to be authored and/or added by the same party until close to the end, when a seemingly random note had been interjected by someone with an obvious bias against the organization. The bit of information had to do with the internet habits of organization members, who supposedly “roam” the internet adding laudatory comments about the founder whenever and wherever possible until they are considered spammers by “some blog authors.” I would not consider this “encyclopedic” information, but then, I am free to respond to it.
2. I then searched for a topic I know little about: the archeological site Catal huyuk that I read about recently in a book discussing the goddess-worshipping societies of Old Europe. This article had no tags or banners. Because the subject is presumably more cut-and-dried than that of a guru-led humanitarian organization, there seems to be less potential for subjectivity – nestled safely in the realm of archeological science, the article primarily inventories the findings and offers only brief snapshots of analysis. It is a bare-bones description but the external links and further readings provide a trail that ought to prove far juicier.
3. Finally, I looked up a topic that I could imagine teaching one day: William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In this entry I found a synopsis of the story (helpful for those who want the “cliff notes” of the play, but not so helpful for those who don’t want the story given away before they’ve had a chance to read it. There is, however, a courteous “spoiler warning” which alerts to the fact that the plot/ending are revealed.) There is also a fairly in-depth and sufficiently-critical study of the themes of anti-Semitism and sexuality in the play – the two loudest and most discussed. This would be helpful in getting ideas for classroom discussion, for there are bits of information and angles of criticism that I had not come across before. Also helpful is a list of all of the film adaptations (5 of them) which might be interesting for students – or for me as a teacher to create a montage to incorporate into lecture or discussion for more visual learners. And at the end, a handy list of Shakespeare’s complete works.
The most useful thing about this kind of presentation of information is the hyperlinks referencing almost anything that could be further elaborated upon, and of course, the list of other resources. Imagining myself as a teacher, I can see this tool as being extremely valuable, for it manifests what we already know to be true: that everything is connected, and that intellectual (and emotional/spiritual) conversation can lead anywhere, down infinite paths to form infinite patterns of connection. This is where English meets History meets Science meets Religion, all so much more easily and obviously through our evolving technologies.
4. With that said, I suppose I am naturally segueing into my positive opinion of Wikipedia. I am always open to hearing the opposite viewpoint to any issue and was looking forward to having my increasing favorable opinion of Wikipedia healthily challenged after reading Dean Shareski’s praise for its educational utopianism. I was disappointed, however. I feel that Carol Winkler missed the point. She fixated so much on the potential horror of “bad information” and the degradation of our children from being exposed to it through plebian scholarship. True, there’s nothing appealing about contributing to the rot of our society by setting our children up to be bad decision-makers because of being fed slop, but the real issue seems to be that our entire paradigm of learning is changing. The children of the present simply don’t/won’t learn the way we “always have” because the whole world is changing – and fast. The biggest point is that no one is saying “this is authority, this is truth” about Wikipedia. It exists in a completely different paradigm from Britannica and the “Great Conversation” as we have known it thus far. Built into it implicitly is the understanding that this is communal knowledge, and, instead of turning kids’ brains to mush because the information they gobble up could be “bad”, I see instead that it makes their minds ever sharper, because we all know that we cannot know the “truth” of something based on a concept of someone’s authority. We must sharpen our critical skills – more than ever! – so that we can gauge someone’s level of “authority and expertise”. It can only increase our confidence in ourselves, and our confidence in the information we root out and evaluated for ourselves. If we are afraid of our children getting something negative from an inevitable technology, it is our duty to educate them so that they can acquire skills to use that technology to their benefit. (In reality, it’s already happening – and, more likely, they are teaching us.)
1. In researching Wikipedia in light of this article, I first explored a topic that I am very knowledgeable about: the Art of Living Foundation. I have been involved with this organization for 11 years and am very familiar with all aspects of it. The first thing that struck me about this entry was the tags bannered across the top. Since I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia, I had not come across these notices before, and it gave me a feel for the malleable and interactive qualities of this database. The first banner posts a suggestion that this topic be merged with another, which is the identical subject under a different name. I wondered how many times information is repeated because posters are using different titles and are unaware of other references. But because the system is open to continual correction (or, at least, alteration), when such instances occur – as evidenced here – they are brought to light. The next two banners were of a policing nature: the article needed to be “wikified”, or formatted according to the guidelines, and, appropriate references were lacking. Finally, a small tag proclaims that, “the neutrality of this article is disputed,” with a link to a discussion.
This last notice was understandable after I read the contents, for most of the information had been more or less lifted from the Art of Living promotional materials that I have heard a million times from within the organization. The discussion about this neutrality issue, however, was disappointing. It consisted of just three posts of a few lines or words each – none of which, of course, being elaborated upon or developed. Perhaps this was a relatively recent addition, or perhaps there really isn’t that much interest in this particular issue of neutrality. For all intents and purposes, though the information comes from within the organization and is not as critical as some would expect from a scholarly article, it does explain in as general of terms as possible what the organization is about. I found nothing particularly laudatory about the presentation of materials (moving into my “critical” stance as much as possible from my familiar position).
Another thing I found interesting is that the sub-headings within the article seemed to be authored and/or added by the same party until close to the end, when a seemingly random note had been interjected by someone with an obvious bias against the organization. The bit of information had to do with the internet habits of organization members, who supposedly “roam” the internet adding laudatory comments about the founder whenever and wherever possible until they are considered spammers by “some blog authors.” I would not consider this “encyclopedic” information, but then, I am free to respond to it.
2. I then searched for a topic I know little about: the archeological site Catal huyuk that I read about recently in a book discussing the goddess-worshipping societies of Old Europe. This article had no tags or banners. Because the subject is presumably more cut-and-dried than that of a guru-led humanitarian organization, there seems to be less potential for subjectivity – nestled safely in the realm of archeological science, the article primarily inventories the findings and offers only brief snapshots of analysis. It is a bare-bones description but the external links and further readings provide a trail that ought to prove far juicier.
3. Finally, I looked up a topic that I could imagine teaching one day: William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In this entry I found a synopsis of the story (helpful for those who want the “cliff notes” of the play, but not so helpful for those who don’t want the story given away before they’ve had a chance to read it. There is, however, a courteous “spoiler warning” which alerts to the fact that the plot/ending are revealed.) There is also a fairly in-depth and sufficiently-critical study of the themes of anti-Semitism and sexuality in the play – the two loudest and most discussed. This would be helpful in getting ideas for classroom discussion, for there are bits of information and angles of criticism that I had not come across before. Also helpful is a list of all of the film adaptations (5 of them) which might be interesting for students – or for me as a teacher to create a montage to incorporate into lecture or discussion for more visual learners. And at the end, a handy list of Shakespeare’s complete works.
The most useful thing about this kind of presentation of information is the hyperlinks referencing almost anything that could be further elaborated upon, and of course, the list of other resources. Imagining myself as a teacher, I can see this tool as being extremely valuable, for it manifests what we already know to be true: that everything is connected, and that intellectual (and emotional/spiritual) conversation can lead anywhere, down infinite paths to form infinite patterns of connection. This is where English meets History meets Science meets Religion, all so much more easily and obviously through our evolving technologies.
4. With that said, I suppose I am naturally segueing into my positive opinion of Wikipedia. I am always open to hearing the opposite viewpoint to any issue and was looking forward to having my increasing favorable opinion of Wikipedia healthily challenged after reading Dean Shareski’s praise for its educational utopianism. I was disappointed, however. I feel that Carol Winkler missed the point. She fixated so much on the potential horror of “bad information” and the degradation of our children from being exposed to it through plebian scholarship. True, there’s nothing appealing about contributing to the rot of our society by setting our children up to be bad decision-makers because of being fed slop, but the real issue seems to be that our entire paradigm of learning is changing. The children of the present simply don’t/won’t learn the way we “always have” because the whole world is changing – and fast. The biggest point is that no one is saying “this is authority, this is truth” about Wikipedia. It exists in a completely different paradigm from Britannica and the “Great Conversation” as we have known it thus far. Built into it implicitly is the understanding that this is communal knowledge, and, instead of turning kids’ brains to mush because the information they gobble up could be “bad”, I see instead that it makes their minds ever sharper, because we all know that we cannot know the “truth” of something based on a concept of someone’s authority. We must sharpen our critical skills – more than ever! – so that we can gauge someone’s level of “authority and expertise”. It can only increase our confidence in ourselves, and our confidence in the information we root out and evaluated for ourselves. If we are afraid of our children getting something negative from an inevitable technology, it is our duty to educate them so that they can acquire skills to use that technology to their benefit. (In reality, it’s already happening – and, more likely, they are teaching us.)
posted by Ms. Herr at 1:43 AM
3 Comments:
I'm very intrigued with the assignment that is appearing on a number of blogs regarding the article I helped write. I obviously am pleased with your conclusions. Since the writing of this article about 6 months ago, I've become even more convinced of wikipedias usefulness.
Can you tell me what class you are writing for? I can't seem to locate the root of this assignment.
http://ideasandthoughts.org
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I am writing for an education class at California State University, San Marcos: Technology Tools for Teaching and Learning. It is actually a prerequisite for entering the credential program. We've only had two classes so far, and so far it's been very productive...
Thanks for the note -- I enjoyed your point of view.
Post a Comment
<< Home