Boost it.
Okay, reflection done, right? Wrong! It’s not hard for me to make a decision when it comes to Wikipedia, because that site has saved my bacon so many times that I can scarcely count anymore. I’ll give you an example. For my upcoming presentation in Learning Theory on Transformative Learning, I at first resisted using Wikipedia as a source for information. Why? Well, it’s a little bit like cheating, isn’t it? But after some less than helpful searching on the web, and some “esoteric” writing from in some dense books by the champion of Transformative Learning, it became clear to me that I needed a simpler “in” to start the understanding of this particular subject. Went to the Wiki, and found a simpler description of the subject, and some very good links to understandable, but scholarly, information. Thanks Wikipedia!!!
This could sound like it could be an isolated incident, but in fact, I find myself turning to Wikipedia more and more because I’m constantly impressed with the consistent high-quality nature of the information on the Wiki. More often than not, when a subject that I’m researching isn’t of a scholarly nature, it will be my only research tool. I want to get in, get out and be done, and due to the fairly low error rate of Wikipedia, I’m not too worried that what I’ll find is going to lead me down the primrose path. See, I just wanted to make sure that I used “down the primrose path” correctly, and went to Google. First site it came up with, Wikipedia. Naturally I clicked on it and it assured me that I was correct (unless it some kind of grand conspiracy) and that the phrase originated from Hamlet, Act 1, scene 3.
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads
And recks not his own rede.
Sweet!
As a teacher, I would only accept Wikipedia as secondary research, and only if they include the references that Wikipedia draws from. As with any research I would require primary resources (see my discussion about John Seigenthaler below). The article says that Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia. When I was in school, my teachers refused to let me use the brown World Book encyclopedias in my parent’s family room for research. I was always upset by this idea. I figured that the people who made these encyclopedias had done extensive research, and the information inside should be accurate. I thought that my teachers were just trying to torment me having me look for primary sources. Clearly as a Masters student, I now understand that primary sources are vital for understanding a subject. Yes, I know that practically all information in our interconnected world is derivative, and you can keep going down the rabbit hole forever trying to find primary sources, it’s true. But I’m convinced that it’s quite easy to do. And I would require students to do also. Sorry kids. :(
But I want to talk about more than the questions asked. Yes, I’m a Wikipedia believer, but I’m also familiar with the controversy. Take one John Seigenthaler. In 2005, a biographical entry on Wikipedia said “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.” (Seigenthaler, 2005) This was not true, and after Seigenthaler was contacted about this inaccuracy, he sought to not only correct the information on Wikipedia and associated websites, but also track down his “biographer.” It was much more difficult than one would imagine, and after contacting Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, he was told that it was unlikely that he would ever be able to track that person down. Suffice it to say that Seigenthaler is not a big fan of the Wiki because of his personal involvement.
But this leads into some interesting territory when it comes to the whole concept of defamation of character and libel. On one hand, we live in an age where anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection can libel (or slander if they post it in an audio or video file) anyone else. These methods used to be much harder to do in the pre-electronic era where you needed access to the printed or electronic press. There were fewer sources of information, so consequently the impact of incorrect information in them was higher. Now we’ve all heard that information (correct or incorrect) on the Internet lives forever. That’s not completely accurate because while this information may be kept in servers, on message boards and other histories, newer information is constantly replacing old, and when people research, they will almost certainly come across newer and, likely, more accurate information, Wikipedia, for example. So, should we hold people who defame on the Internet to the same standard as the print or old form electronic media? That depends. If it’s on a web site that should know better (NY Times, CNN, et. al.) then yes. But if it is an un-moderated web forum, certainly not. It’s when you get in between that you have to really think about the issue.
I would want my students to understand that the internet, like the world, is not a perfect place, and that you have to learn how to use judgment. What a concept.
Seigenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). USA Today.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment