Week 4 Reaction to readings and case study
September 23, 2008 katdp3
Hello everyone- I will be out of class again due to a car accident so I apologize for not being able to elaborate on the following thoughts in person.
“Can History be Open Source”-I found this article very interesting. As I have mentioned in class before, I am very skeptical and usually encourage my students to avoid Wikipedia when citing sources for their research paper. After reading this article I found some of my worries confirmed and some info attitude changing. I thought Rosenzweig’s arguments on the accessibility and speed in collecting and reforming information submitted to the wikipedia page has its drawbacks as he highlighted. First there are common errors always found in articles submitted to Wikipedia, but they could be quickly changed and corrected. I also agree that through google searches wikipedia is usually one or two for recommended sites, for better or for worse. I also thought it was interesting that some sites as he mentions such as “Britannica” and “Encarta” might have better reputations, accuracy wise, but wikipedia has up to the minute revised news that for the most part would take longer for those before mentioned sites to provide. The “free” cost issue is obviously attractive to many, and the growing articles submitted and held on wikipedia has increased exponentially. I also thought it was an interesting argument made by Rosenzweig that Wikipedia tries to provide a “neutral point of view” in their articles, but because articles can be edited that can change right? And the articles themselves might elaborate more on the side of an issue and not on another-which inherently shows bias right?? So I thought that was a little tricky. My biggest argument is who has access to editing and are those individuals reliable enough, if the goal is to make wikipedia a true, accredited source, will that ever be without some type of crack down on who is allowed to edit? And if there is a crackdown does that change the whole goal that the creators envisioned? I do like what Rosenzweig mentions toward the end of his article- on adding a limited version to check the “history” of each page. That would be something that I would totally be for which could let you know not only how many edits, but who used the pages and if those people are very active in editing for Wikipedia. That inclusion gave me more confidence in this site. But my argument, as I’m sure most of you will agree, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which doesn’t count in my opinion as a secondary or primary source! (My students get tired of hearing that!)
“Googling the Victorians”-I like how this article showed the indispensable quality of search engines not only for seeking information but for networking thoughts and ideas. In giving credit to the internet age, Leary admits the endless possibilities for finding previously uncovered information that is accessible online without solely relying on library databases and librarian knowledge. Although he reassures that there is a fine balance to library research collection and internet use, he points to the present time as a great opportunity for knowledge and sharing of knowledge, which I completely agree with. I also agree that mastering how to use google in typing in your subject with quotations or not with quotations or with specific titles or more general is a skill to be mastered to get the information that you are most interested in.
“Digital Maoism”-Maybe it’s part of the concussion I experienced, but I thought this article jumped around so much when Lanier is trying to prove his argument through multiple examples. I understand that he worries through the craze of Wiki sites and Myspace the individuals voice will be lost. The collective set up of Wikipedia in putting together an article that is a combination of writers, and editing procedures Lanier argues that this causes the voice of the writer to be indistinguishable and lost in many ways. This is not the case through self constructed websites that contain the personality and emotion of the creator. I think that point is very interesting, and can definitely be seen if you compare WIkipedia to website located by google. Even though the voice cannot be heard on Wikipedia, that doesn’t mean that the information displayed, voice heard or not, is more accurate that Wikipedia might provide. It seems as though he is more concerned about losing individuality in the process of collaboration.
“No Computer Left Behind”-As a teacher I can personally relate to the message in this article. Cohen and Rosenzweig seem to be major proponents of eliminating the use of Scan tron tests because it is not a method of challenging student learning or student achievement but rather a tool used to grade easier and access mundane knowledge. This shortened form of assessment has its place a believe, I think it challenges students to use their knowledge of a subject and apply it to find the right answer among a series of available ones. Obviously the knowledge has to be there for them to get the right answers. But as a teacher I always include critical reading questions, and short answer/essay based assessments that allow students to tie their ideas together which draws from what we discussed in class, what they might have learned from primary sources, from online sources, or from secondary sources. In having assessments structured in such a way, it really does require students to think of “complex and thoughtful” answers which test their comprehension. I am guilty of using scantron, but they are always paired with an expression based format question, one that asks students to be comprehensive in their analysis. I agree and share the concern of Cohen and Rosenzweig in their article.
“Know it All”-I first found the part that the “George Bush” article has to be monitored all the time for “vandalism” hilarious. Sorry to offend anyone, but you just cannot make that up! “Sometimes more than twice a minute” is just too funny. But I think it gets to the heart of the article, which is a major critique of wiki sites, how they heck do you monitor the edits when this is a continuously growing site, and how do you know for certain who is running the site. The fact that this 24 year old guy who claimed to have a theology degree and PHD and who is suppose to be in charge of confirming accuracies has no professional standing to do so is TERRIFYING! Hence, my case and point of skepticism with Wiki. Accountability???? I mean come on!
“The Wikipedia Story that’s Being Missed”-Cohen is in support of Wikipedia and it’s partnership with google and yahoo especially, and using wikipedia entries on any particular subject can help with retrieving information. I agree that wikipedia helps search engines like google because it is a free service and their are lots of new contributions every day. It is definitely not perfected enough to my liking though. I’ll stop there before I get repetitive.
“Citizendium”-is a rival site to Wikipedia. There mission is to focus on reliability and quality rather than on quantity, which I think is a direct jab at wikipedia who is a growing more and more by the minute almost in an unregulated manner. The site itself admits to its newness and its appeal for both editors and authors to join. One of the clear differences this site has to wikipedia is real names are used in both “collegial and congenial” ways. And the branch of Citizendium: Eduzendium writes for academic credit, which I think is an interesting twist. Contributions in the fields of: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts, Applied Arts and Sciences, and Recreation are all apart of this site. This is also a free site, that works toward promoting education, in a nonprofit, global way.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
