View the EDTECH Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in EDTECH's April 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in EDTECH's April 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the EDTECH home page.
I agree with your first paragraph. Web 2.0 issues need to be addressed. We also need faculty that are understand how to deal with this and to teach students these skills rather than rote memorization for state testing. If Wikipedia would police itself, it would be a good place to practice critical thinking and evaluation of resources. The CIPA issues and local values that relate to it are still a major stumbling block. > From: Maggi Idzikowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >> c. Many teachers want access to Wikipedia and other similar >> sites. We block these because: >> <snip> >> ii. The site is non-authoritative. I understand the >> underlying premise of Wikipedia. However, the social negotiation (which >> is what Wikipedia is) of information as part of the constructivist >> paradigm of learning, should not exist online, rather it should be the >> mind of the student. > > What an interesting statement. The fact is, it does exist online, and is, > indeed, what students will come across when encountering of Web 2.0 > resources. How does a teacher or librarian teach middle and high school > students how to evaluate with such resources if students never come across > them? It seems akin to asking students to understand and appreciate the > ramifications of racism without ever seeing it in action in literature or > primary sources. > > Can you respond to Wikipedia's claims of accuracy? > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) Although the policies of the > Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, > critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies > (including undue weight given to popular culture), and allege that it > favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Its > reliability and accuracy are also targeted.Other criticisms center on > its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified > information, though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally > short-lived, and an investigation in Nature found that the material > they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopędia Britannica > and had a similar rate of "serious errors". > > Lastly, and more importantly for my elementary students, can you find any > other reasonably authoritative sources for students to cite when writing > feature articles on Pokemon, Hannah Montana or other pop culture icons? > Their only other sources are web pages -- and I would prefer Wikipedia over > a fan web page. > > I put these questions to you in a spirit of friendly discourse and look > forward to your response. > > -Maggi Idzikowski > Media Specialist > Allen Elementary School, Ann Arbor MI > email@example.com > Blogging with my 3-year-old at http://mamalibrarian.blogspot.com/ --- Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb Please include your name, email address, and school or professional affiliation in each posting. To unsubscribe send the following command to: LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU SIGNOFF EDTECH