Studying Wikipedia
Interesting to note that NSW school students next year will be able to take a course in studying Wikipedia.
Despite all its flaws, Wikipedia continues to go from strength to strength. It has a massively high Google page rank, is one of the most visited sites in the world, and blogs almost universally link to it when talking about a particular issue or topic which people may want more information on.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Wikipedia
May 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
nome? nome? come in nome …
May 27th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I heard this morning that many students are abandoning IT.
The quality of IT as taught in NZ primary schools is pathetic – and involves such things as “bolding text, changing text colour” etc
And unfortunately many of the teachers, are still getting their heads around just the basics.
The education system needs to wake up to the fact that many of the children have been using IT for 2 -3 years before they even get to school.
The IT syllabus needs to much more challenging – it seems to me that Australia have got it right again – studying Wikipedia is a great place to start.
The problem in NZ is that to get Wikipedia in as course material would take several years, by which time Wikipedia will have morphed into something quite different.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
As a side note
One of my children now studies from home in a virtual classroom using a webcam, and headset.
I could endure the mediocrity of her State Primary School any longer!!!
In her fully digital classroom, she has over 100 different ways to report her learning, and can learn at light speed
and does so under the guidance of an amazing teacher along with other children from around NZ.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I suspect home schooling will become more and more popular when the state schools are used as brainwashing centres for engineering social change. I understand the homeschooling CD prepared by Dr Robinson of the Oregon Centre for (???) is excellent.
I use Wikipedia for matters of fact and summaries of historical events etc but an cautious about referring to it for reliable information on contentious areas such as Iraq, Peak Oil, climate change, evolution, Hillary Clinton, Cuba and the like because “lobby groups” work hard to ensure their own position gets into the record. I suppose the test is “Am I looking for facts or sound scholarship?”
Wikipedia is fine for the first but not for the second.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I anot sure why anyone would give negative karma to democracymum for that statement (mine brought you back to +0). I would like to know more democracymum about this virtual school. Can you point me to a web site? While not right for some kids – my son for one – I can see that it would be cracker for others. Is it part of correspondence school?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Brian
No it is not part of the correspondence school
The link is here http://www.alphaed.co.nz/
May 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I had a terrible row with some of the folk over at Public Address when I had the temerity to suggest that sites like Wikipedia – dressed up as an authority but in many instances fact a source of highly biased opinion (presenting only those facts which suit the writer’s perspective) – risked a populace unable to decipher fact from opinion (c.f. roger nome et al).
I was lept upon as though I’d worn a Metallica t-shirt to a revivalist meeting. Interesting how (broadly) left-leaning people seem to want to defend Wikipedia as some sort of oracle rather than what it is (which is neatly summarised by Owen above). Perhaps because the conspiracy theorists round here are right, and there’s a vast army of left wing activists paid to infiltrate the blogosphere with thinly disguised propaganda masquerading as fact
But what I was actually trying to suggest is that people need to be taught how to use a tool like this. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, or a reference site in the way that, say, the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian is. Provided you know how to use it, it’s one tool in a very useful toolbox. So the NSW course seems like a good idea.
Mind you, the conspiracy theorists referred to above may have a problem with the fact that the course will be taught by teachers, a group not exactly strongly identified with a right wing view of the world…
May 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
@democracymum: good on you. We take on apprenticeships in IT //before// they go to Uni/Tech and get ruined (with 50-70k staring salary expectations
May 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Wikipedia is NOT a reliable resource. Having had a lot to do in the past and now with public, university, law and commercial document supply special libraries. I can tell you none of the staff in any of these entities would EVER recommend relying on Wikipedia for information to their users or clients. Wikipedia’s authors reputations and qualifications are unknown or unable to be checked, its content is subject to outside interference and manipulation, its more controversial topics are subject to bias contributions and are in continuous despite and is dominated by a North American perspective in general topics. Far too often there is a clear lack of citations or in many cases any citations at all and editorial control is limited making Wikipedia chaotic and random in writing quality, comprehension and clarity. Also large sections of many topics are either ignored or only very briefly looked at.
Wikipedia is however a fun toy, but that’s all it really is.
To quote from the article via the link provided by DPF:
“However, because the site allows authors and editors to use pseudonyms, the system is open to abuse, vandalism and a selective telling of history that reflects an author’s bias.”
Says it all really.