Previous by DateNext by Date Date Index
Previous by ThreadNext by Thread Thread Index
LM_NET Archive



Here's a short essay about Wikipedia I posted on my blog last night that I thought 
might be of interest... -andy

Turning Wikipedia into an Asset for Schools
http://www.andycarvin.com
permalink: http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/07/turning_wikiped.html

Art Wolinsky and I went to dinner tonight just outside of Atlantic City, where I'll 
be leading a two-day workshop on documentary making for a group of elementary 
school teachers. During dinner, Art and I talked about what I'll be presenting 
tomorrow morning, as well as fun Internet topics such as video blogging, podcasting 
and Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia in particular, we talked about the hostility that many educators have 
towards the website, particularly their concerns that it can't be considered a 
reliable source. It's the classic dilemma of a wiki website - because wikis allow 
any site visitor to edit or add content, you raise the risk of getting content that 
isn't up to snuff. And the fact that young and old alike often go to Wikipedia and 
see that its name ends in -pedia, they assume it's just like any other encyclopedia 
and they should take its content as vetted, accurate information, which ain't 
always the case.

I explained to Art the community of Wikipedia volunteers known as Wikipedians who 
have created a system of checks and balances to improve the quality of content and 
avoid problems with virtual graffiti and inaccuracies. But it's not a perfect 
system, so it's not a huge surprise that a lot of educators just don't want their 
students utilizing the site.

I had a flashback; a group of us on the WWWEDU email list had tried to create a 
"Kidopedia" - an online encyclopedia written entirely by kids - back in 1996, 
hosted by St. John's University. It didn't get very far because all encyclopedia 
entries were being posted manually by real people; that, and the fact that it was 
hard to articulate a compelling case as to why kids should be doing this in the 
first place.

While I understand educators' concerns about directing kids towards "reliable" 
reference sources, the more I think about it, the more I think Wikipedia's flaws 
actually make it an ideal learning tool for students. That may sound 
counterintuitive, of course - how can you recommend a tool that you know may not be 
accurate? Well, that's precisely the point: when you go to Wikipedia, some entries 
are better referenced than others. That's just a basic fact. Some entries will have 
a scrupulous list of sources cited and a detailed talk page on which Wikipedians 
debate the accuracy of information presented in order to improve it. Others, 
though, will have no sources cited and no active talk pages. To me, this presents 
teachers with an excellent authentic learning activity in which students can 
demonstrate their skills as scholars.

Here's a quick scenario. Take a group of fifth grade students and break them into 
groups, with each group picking a topic that interests them. Any topic. Dolphins, 
horses, hockey, you name it.

Next, send the groups of kids to Wikipedia to look up the topic they selected. 
Chances are, someone has already created a Wikipedia entry on that particular 
subject. The horse, for example, has an extensive entry on the website. It 
certainly looks accurate and informative, but is it? Unfortunately, there are no 
citations for any of the facts claimed about horses on the page.

This is where it gets fun. The group of students breaks down the content on the 
page into manageable chunks, each with a certain amount of facts that need to be 
verified. The students then spend the necessary time to fact-check the content. As 
the students work their way through the list, they'll find themselves with two 
possible outcomes: either they'll verify that a particular factoid is correct, or 
they'll prove that it's not. Either way, they'll generate a paper trail, as it 
were, of sources proving the various claims one way or another.

Once the Wikipedia entry has been fact-checked, the teacher creates a Wikipedia 
login for the class. They go to the entry's talk page and present their findings, 
laying out every idea that needs to be corrected. Then, they edit the actual entry 
to make the corrections, with all sources cited. Similarly, for all the parts of 
the entry they've verified as accurate, they list sources confirming it. That way, 
each idea presented in the Wikipedia entry has been verified and referenced - 
hopefully with multiple sources.

Get enough classrooms doing this, you kill several birds with one stone: 
Wikipedia's information gets better, students help give back to the Net by 
improving the accuracy of an important online resource, and teachers have a way to 
make lemons into lemonade, turning Wikipedia from a questionable information source 
to a powerful tool for information literacy.

I can already see it now: an official K-12 Seal of Approval put on Wikipedia 
entries that have been vetted by students. Wish I were more handy in Photoshop. 
-andy

-- 
-----------------------------------
Andy Carvin
Program Director
EDC Center for Media & Community
acarvin @ edc . org
http://www.digitaldivide.net
http://www.tsunami-info.org
Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com
-----------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
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/
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