As I began reading Richardson's chapter 4 about the power of the Wiki I was reminded of a sticky situation I had at school this past week. On page 59 Richardson comments: "...whereas most people get the 'pedia' part of the name few really understand the first part, the wiki."I had a teacher approach me this week about using the Wikipedia with students. She inquired why a shortcut to the Wikipedia was not included on our network for student access. She wanted students to be able to use the Wikipedia for research they are completing in 4th grade. I sat and thought for a moment about her inquiry and proceeded to explain that although the Wikipedia is full of a wealth of knowledge, it cannot be regarded as a 100% valid information source for student use.
I then went on to explain the 'wiki' portion of the name to her. How anyone anywhere in the world can login and edit what is included in the Wikipedia. I assured her that there are editors helping to ensure that the information is correct, but at any given time and for any given topic students could be searching information that is not current or not updated. She had no idea that the Wikipedia was a flexible, changeable document. Our conversation concluded with me encouraging her modeling lessons where she is searching the Wikipedia for information and then verifying the information with another source, while the student research at this time is done through other online databases and encyclopedias. I felt that was the appropriate use for her 4th graders at this time.
This was a tough moment for me. Because I do feel the Wikipedia is a great resource and did not want to discourage its use. When did you learn the true meaning of 'wiki'? I am sure this staff member is one of many who don't realize the easily changeable nature of the Wikipedia. How do you feel about student use of the Wikipedia for research? Do you view it as a valid source of information?
5 comments:
This is something I wrestled with with my students. I have settled on a policy of them using wikipedia to begin research and give them information that they can further research on other more validated sites, but may not use Wikipedia as a direct source. In my own mind though, what makes another source more valid. If you think about it, someone's personal sight has no oversight, where Wikipedia has oversight by everyone. Maybe my thinking is backward. Maybe Wikipedia is the desired place for accurate information. Have any of you found an error?
Scott, I think I am at this point just wrestling with the Wikipedia vs. another online database such as the online Encylopedia Britannica which our school has a subscription to and has to be verified prior to publication.
I agree that a personal site definitely would have much less oversight and could be problematic. I have not found an error yet on the Wikipedia, but I guess you just never know.
I think the important part here that everyone should be educated on what a wiki is since there are so many who are unaware of how it operates.
My students at the high school like to use wikipedia. I've told them that it is all right as a starting point, but that should not be their only research. To use more than one source has been standard practice. Now I can explain why as you did for that teacher. One of my classes wanted to know if they could add information. I assured them that they could, but they should use formal English without errors so they would have more credibility. That led to a discussion about why that should make a difference. So discussing the wikisite is interesting to these high school students also.
when i 1st came across the wikipedia & similar resources, i "assummed" everything was good to go, valid, etc... only because i was in a hurry to get info & being lazy. it's a good thing that i wasn't modeling a lesson for stdnts, since i obviously learned not to rely 100% on this type of internet resource. it would be interesting if a tchr added wrong/false info on purpose to "test" her stdnts & assess if they are editing carefully & if they learned the info (whatever the concept/topic) & "mastered" it sufficiently to catch incorrect info (how's that for authentic assessment?)
Honestly, wikipedia pops up so much when you are searching for things haphazardly on the web that I think many people really think it is a true web based encyclopedia. I think that you did the right thing by giving the teacher wiki classroom advice. As for your questions, I really do feel that it (wikipedia) is a valid source of information. It's current and if we teach our students to always use more than one source, really what's the harm.
Post a Comment