Interesting to know: The term "wiki" comes from the Hawaiian for "wiki-wiki" which means quick according to Richardson, p. 55. (I'm sure my wiki will seem quick once I get used to it).
Important to know: "Wikipedia is becoming a trusted and cited source by many major news outlets" including the New York Times. (Richardson, p. 58). This was important information in shaping my (previously limited) information about wikis. Because of shared authorship (and often anonymous authorship) I, along with many other educators, have viewed Wikipedia as unreliable in research because anyone can make changes to it at any time. Well, you know how the saying goes, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." As I continued through the reading my thinking about wikis shifted in that I can see the potential as a venue to collaboratively "grow knowledge." Students must continually evaluate information, check outside sources to confirm and then express what they know.
I find it interesting that in an industry that buys so heavily into textbook use as the core of our content area instruction, we are at best tentative and certainly suspicious of the use of sites like Wikipedia. The "word" in textbooks is often taken as gospel, when it's been shown time and again that there are so many inaccuracies. How is that any different? I'm sure it's our mindset. With that in mind, would it not be worth dipping our toes in the wiki waters?
I love your wallpaper--suits your personality! I also have become a convert to the value of sending kids to wikipedia as a place to get a general grounding on a topic--before looking into more specialized sources. It seems to be the "World Book" (am I dating myself?) that we used as the starting point for research. We warn our kids, just as our teachers warned us that it is a starting point to get an overview--but not an end point.
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked with some Wikipedia sites with kids last year, we discovered the little bracketed numbers near almost every statement that could be clicked on to see the source and then click to BACKGROUND on the source. The kids noticed that some of the brackets have a question mark in them--or a notation that a more reliable source is needed. The info from Wikipedia was more reliably sourced than the majority of the other sites the kids found.
Excellent point about reminding kids that EVERYTHING is written from some point of view. The mantra of the 60s returns--"question everything!"
Diane,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip about the bracketed numbers; haven't spent enough time with Wikipedia to realize all of the hidden tools. And good to know that you found them to be more reliably sourced than other sites. It just affirms what the authors state.
I love what you've said about trusting the textbook, but not Wikipedia. So very true. In the past few years, I have been impressed with how much more accurate Wikipedia has become. And it has definitely become my "go-to" source for quick fact look-up. And I trust it. But not in the classroom. Richardson made a good point about Wikipedia showing all sides of an issue. In my classes, I focus primarily on analysis, which makes Wikipedia less useful. But, perhaps it's time to design a few lessons about how to use Wikipedia properly.
ReplyDelete