I suppose the main issue with wikipedia is how kids use it. Instead of looking for
a range of information from a range of sources to verify what they have and to seek
different points of view, students today want the one-stop-shop. How we teach kids
to use wikipedia is the issue, not necessarily the source. Until teachers set real
investigative assignments that require thinking and decision making and utilise TLs
for guided inquiry use multiple quality resources, kids will use the one-stop-shop.
A major issue is that they think they can do this at university level too.
Another issue for Gen Y - if they can't find it online within the first 4-6 results
on a Google search, they assume it isn't there, rather than I don't know. One of
the most important thngs we need to teach our students is the ability to recognise
when they don't know and to seek an IS specialist (TL) to help them find out.
:)
BC
President WA Operations, WASLA, http://www.wasla.asn.au/
Vice President, Advocacy & Promotion, IASL: www.iasl-online.org
The GiggleIT Project: www.iasl-online.org/sla/giggleIT/index.htm
InfoScience Seminars: http://www.scss.ecu.edu.au/seminars/infosci/index.php
Australian School Library Research Project: www.chs.ecu.edu.au/portals/ASLRP/
Barbara Combes, Lecturer
School of Computer and Security Science Edith Cowan University, Perth Western
Australia
Ph: (08) 9370 6072
Email: b.combes@ecu.edu.au
"Whatever the cost of our libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an
ignorant nation." Walter Cronkite
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return
email or telephone and destroy the original message.
-----Original Message-----
From: School Library Media & Network Communications
[mailto:LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Nancy Willard
Sent: Tuesday, 25 May 2010 12:30 AM
To: LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [LM_NET] Wikipedia
Which naturally leads to the question of how many times World Book has "shaped" or
"omitted" certain information about the actions of the United States government.
Compare what is in World Book to The People's History of the United States.
Nancy
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use http://csriu.org nwillard@csriu.org
Giffard, Sue wrote:
> Let's not forget that the World Book made certain changes in its content to align
>it with Chinese government policy in its Chinese edition:
>http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6448199.html?q=world+book+china
> Profit wins over "accurate information" in this case, so how can we possibly
>present the World Book Encyclopedia to our students as an authoritative source
>written by experts?
>
> Sue Giffard
> Ethical Culture School
> New York, NY 10023
> sgiffard@ecfs.org
> (212)712-6292
>
> "Perhaps the only victory available [is] the victory of the heart over its own
>inclinations for despair, revenge and hatred." (Leonard Cohen, September 24, 2009)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: School Library Media & Network Communications on behalf of Nancy Willard
> Sent: Mon 5/24/2010 11:40 AM
> To: LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia
>
> I was asked:
>
> What about an authoritative source written by experts in the field such as World
>Book Online or Student Resource Center.
>
> Good question.
>
><http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html>
>
>
>> Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as
>> Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world
>> around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
>>
>> In response to situations like these and others in its history,
>> Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service
>> and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning
>> nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.
>>
>> Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of
>> valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia
>> Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.
>>
>> For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range
>> of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for
>> peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one
>> from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which
>> article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from
>> its field of experts.
>>
>> In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as
>> general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of
>> those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series
>> of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told,
>> Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
>>
>> That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86
>> for Wikipedia.
>>
>
> This creates a problem. If there is a perception that information
> included in an "authoritative source" like an encyclopedia is "accurate"
> what about the times when it is not accurate? When students conduct
> research on Wikipedia they must keep in mind that people can edit the
> material on Wikipedia, so it is always important to check the actual
> cites and to look in a number of places to see if the information is
> consistent. If we teach them to trust an "authoritative source" are we
> merely misleading them?
>
> So how should we teach abut information credibility?
>
> Nancy
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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, you send a message 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
* To contact an LM_NET Moderator: LM_NET-request@listserv.syr.edu
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/join.html
* LM_NET Supporters: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/category/links/el-announce/
* LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error
please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from
your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan
University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of
the information provided.
CRICOS IPC 00279B
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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, you send a message 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
* To contact an LM_NET Moderator: LM_NET-request@listserv.syr.edu
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/join.html
* LM_NET Supporters: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/category/links/el-announce/
* LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home