[I am including a discussion of Wikipedia in my presentation to the students.
Following are Wikipedia response.]
Re: seeking opinions: are educators hostile to wikipedia? It seems to me that
wikipedia is not only a potentially great resource (if its contents are
verifiable with another more trustworthy source) of fact, but also a great
resource of education regarding teaching someone to "tell
the difference". We say this is a tough thing to do, but I think we have great
examples right in front of us. I very much like that wikipedia keeps old versions
of the pages, so students could examine what has changed and debate why something
was removed / added, and whether the information is true now, was then,
whatever...
I had a very interesting conversation tonight with my son, an academic librarian,
who asked what I thought of Wikipedia. I haven't spent enough time with it to have
formed a full opinion, but given its premise, I have warned students about using
it as their main source of information (is it any easier to use or more accesible
than the online encyclopedias we pay for??) Ken suggested that its value may lie
in the content that simply isn't in a standard encyclopedia--some little rock
band from outback Oklahoma, for instance. That hadn't occurred to me. Now that
type of thing is not likely to generate scholarly research anyway, but it may be a
source which provides students with information (i.e., good enough info) about
topics of personal
interest. It, too, surely has its niche. Just so long as the recognize the
difference.
Several weeks ago WiKipedia was cussed and discussed on this list. Below is a
Kansas Library Listserv (Kanlib) post from one of the librarians at the state
library that has relevance to the conversation: The State Library of Kansas has
cataloged close to 1,000 Wikipedia articleson OCLC so far including about 600
articles on Kansas cities/towns as well as the 105 articles on Kansas counties. I
knew it was a gamble, cataloging these articles. Before starting I did a lot of
looking/reading. Quality control is a big issue on Wikipedia. Out of curiosity
I've looked through the "history" sections of articles on volatile topics such as
abortion, Taliban, etc and found running "battles" between
vandals/people-with-issues and Wikipedia volunteers/staff. Rarely, when the
vandals get way out of hand, an article is locked and updating has to beapproved.
Sometimes a warning appears at the head of an article telling a reader that the
"neutrality" of the article is in question and suggests the reader check the
Discussion section to figure out where the arguments are coming from.Even something
as "bland" as an article on a Kansas town can have an unfortunate edge to it that
has to be deleted/altered by Wikipedia volunteers. I've seen this once and
witnessed a quick "fix" by Wikipedia volunteers.On the whole I've been impressed
with the quality of Wikipedia articles. I've also noticed that Wikipedia is pretty
upfront about letting people know that they are getting information from volunteers
and that it's always good to double check sources. This is true even of the best
sources.We catalog a lot of biographies here at the State Library (out of printed
books by reputable publishers). When I first started cataloging biographies years
ago I was surprised how often I found entirely different dates for a person's
birth/death within the piece I was cataloging and the dates for the same individual
on the Library of Congress Name Authority record. In checking other resources I've
sometimes found the work I have in hand has incorrect dates and other times
discovered that LC has the wrong information... and written LC with my cited
resources and gotten their incorrect information changed. A good example was
former Kansas governor, Mike Hayden. The Library of Congress Name Authority record
for him said that he was not only the governor of Kansas but an author of guide
books about the West Coast. This seemed very strange to me when I first saw it. I
checked into this, discovered that there is another Mike Hayden out West who writes
these books, gave the information to LC and they split the MikeHayden heading into
the two different men.I learned this lesson many moons ago when I was a freshman at
KU. I was working on a paper regarding the history of England during the
Reformation. I went to Watson Library and checked out several books. As I read
through the books I'd checked out I discovered that different writers reported
facts and events in ways that totally conflicted. Sometimes the authors even
gavedifferent dates/locations/names for the same event. Huh? "But it's written in
a book so it must be true?"A light bulb went off in my 18 year old brain... which
occasionally has to be recharged... "When in doubt, check it out." (Can you tell
why my kids have told me that being the child of a librarian is a pain in the rear
when you ask Dad to help you with your homework?)The Seigenthaler affair in
Wikipedia is unfortunate. It's good to approach articles in Wikipedia (as well as
stories in "USA Today" or any other print source) with a wary eye. Article: Can you
trust Wikipedia?
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
Interesting article here on the value of Wikipedia:
Can You Trust Wikipedia?
In this October 2005 article, subject experts were asked for opinions about
sections of the popular online, open access encyclopedia Wikipedia, in the wake of
"the founder of the online encyclopedia ... admitt[ing] some of its entries are 'a
horrific embarrassment.'" Includes ratings and comments on specific entries. From
the Guardian Unlimited, the online companion to the British newspaper The Guardian.
Personally, I've heard that Wikipedia can be both good and bad. The wiki on avian
flu, for example is purported to be excellent - with entries by well know experts
in the area. You can see that one at: http://www.fluwikie.com/ Student like
wikis, but they may not always be their best source. Recommendation , use it with
caution and always double check the facts. Here's a case where alternative sources
may be critical!
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why this guy didn't change his bio when
he saw it was false??? Isn't that the point of a wiki? But it could have just as
easily been replaced with the same bad version, even by another person. The real
issues are how Wikipedia implies a level of authoritativeness to its users and at
the same time assumes virtually no level of control on its 'information'. While
they bump off an occasional known vandal, or work with an especially irate
citizen, they also acknowledge that there are "Notable Weaknesses of Wikipedia"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia#Notable_weaknesses_of_Wikipedia
The most telling quotes?: "Unlike other encyclopedias, the volunteer writers of
articles in
Wikipedia do not need to be experts or scholars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia
:The guidelines should encourage better "quality" sources."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Referencing_in_Wikipedia_articles
Why do they feel it important to highlight quality? Then it is exacerbated by
companies like answers.com pulling the information from 'pedia, adding a
disclaimer of non-responsibility (You understand and agree that the Content is
provided "AS-IS" http://www.answers.com/main/legal_notices.jsp) , and promoting
themselves as a quality resource for research and selling the service.Sorta like
those urban legends, strawman arguments, or 'did you see what (latest political
news) said' blogs and emails: You know to check something authoritative enough to
verify it before passing it on. When would 'pedia be considered authoritative
enough to pass muster for your information needs?
As besides even if he did correct it, that doesn't do anything about the people who
accessed the article before the corrections and believe what they read. I was
working with sophomores yesterday most of whom I did a quite extensive unit on web
evaluation with last year. I asked how many know Wiki and there were only three our
of the six classes. I told them what it was and I watched their faces! It was quite
cool to see the looks when I said anyone was welcome to edit the entries ( I had
not expressed any opinion at this point) the reactions were smiles and frowns--
they knew this wasn't going to be their best source for information. I agree that
the answers.com thing might be even more troubling.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joanne Shawhan
Library Media Specialist
Cobleskill-Richmondville High School
1353 State Route 7--PO Box 490
Richmondville NY 12149
(518)234-3565 x1151, 1152
(518) 234-9006 (fax)
jshawhan@nycap.rr.com
shawhanj@crcs.k12.ny.us
http://www.crcs.k12.ny.us/lib/hs/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
* LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home