Nancy commented: 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.
I was going to write about this separately, but it seems to fit here.
The third grade at one of my schools is just completing a Wikipedia-
based project designed to help them understand the debate over quality
of information on Wikipedia. They wrote individual student reports on
one Ancient Egyptian god or goddess. We then took them into Simple
English Wikipedia--intended for younger/ESL students--and taught them
how to select information appropriate to Wikipedia (no opinions,
etc.), and how to input/edit Wikipedia. Now, other people are editing
their contributions (which, of course, each of them *knows* to be true
and completely correct exactly as they wrote it), and they are seeing
wikis in action. They are being marked as needing better citation, in
some cases. Other, good information is being added. Their "perfect"
information is being changed or corrected. Sometimes, edits even
stimulate unexpected responses from Wikipedia bots, then followed up/
corrected by human editors. They are truly getting a look at what
makes a wiki article happen.
I am writing, in part, to invite any classes doing work on these same
gods and goddesses to join in and edit these articles to help drive
the lesson home. The articles are still pretty young and short, which
means there are lots of clear opportunities for students to watch
their contributions change over time. You can find a list of the
deities we have covered here:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Egyptian_gods_and_goddesses
. Our inputs are also still in progress, by the way, so your students
should also see changes to their additions.
Simple English Wikipedia is pretty lightly populated, and can
generally be used in this manner.
Finally, I must give credit for the original idea to Alan November.
Thank you,
Tasha Bergson-Michelson
Research Skills Trainer
To The Point Research
tasha@tothepointresearch.com
http://searchme.typepad.com
On May 24, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Nancy Willard wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
> Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
> http://csriu.org
> http://cyberbully.org
> http://cyber-safe-kids.com
> http://csriu.wordpress.com
> nwillard@csriu.org
>
>
>
> Beth Martin wrote:
>>
>> Beth Martin
>> Teacher Librarian
>> DC Everest Middle School IMC
>> bmartin@dce.k12.wi.us
>> 715-241-9700 ex.2320
>>
>>
>>>>> Nancy Willard <nwillard@CSRIU.ORG> 5/22/2010 5:15 PM >>>
>>>>>
>> Sometimes I say too much. There are two questions:
>>
>> Where do you think you will find the most complete and accurate
>> information about Martin Luther King?
>>
>> * A textbook that meets the standards of the Texas Textbook
>> Commission.
>> * The martinlutherking.org web site hosted by Stormfront.
>> * A web site set up to honor the legacy of the leaders of the civil
>> rights movement.
>> * A Wikipedia entry.
>>
>> Recognize that each has deficiencies. But in my opinion that the
>> user-generated and edited approach on Wikipedia has the greatest
>> chance of being the closest to complete and accurate. Recognize
>> also that students are going to find information on all of these
>> kinds of sites. So what skills do they need to ensure that the
>> information they find and rely on is credible.
>>
>> How can we best prevent students from accidentally or intentionally
>> accessing pornography? Given that ...
>>
>> * Filters have demonstrated a 10% failure rate under conditions of
>> intentional access.
>> * Students can easily bypass filters - search for "bypass Internet
>> filter."
>> * Students are accessing the Internet from school, from home, from
>> friend's homes, and through their personal devices.
>>
>> 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/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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