FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Creative use of Wikipedia in the classroom

   
Author Topic: Creative use of Wikipedia in the classroom
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Making it the solution, instead of the problem.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
What a solid idea! I really enjoyed reading about it. As I've been in college I've seen some very interesting developments in the wikipedia side of things. Some teachers still discourage their students from using it, and many students have yet to understand how it can be legitimately useful for their projects. But others who used to vocally discourage wikipedia use now use it quite extensively in the classroom lectures and the media links you can find there.

My poly/law teacher was one of the cautious ones and he accepted my use of wikipedia when I noted that I had used the footnotes and checked the links before making any of my statements.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
That is an awesome idea.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joldo
Member
Member # 6991

 - posted      Profile for Joldo   Email Joldo         Edit/Delete Post 
We had that for extra credit in high school, mostly because our Spanish teacher felt that the Spanish-language articles on Wikipedia were far too scarce.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
That is a good idea. If a student realizes the information on wiki potentially comes from a schmuck just like him, he'll be less likely to count on it, I think.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HollowEarth
Member
Member # 2586

 - posted      Profile for HollowEarth   Email HollowEarth         Edit/Delete Post 
I think its a terrible idea.

I don't think that the goals of the writing in an encyclopedia entry and the goals of term paper writing for a class line up all that well. Since it would be a rather pathetic class that only required encyclopedia style writing for its papers. How about some analysis? Or defending an opinion? The goal of paper writing for classes isn't to produce something for mass consumption, but to teach the specific students that are in the class something.

Beyond all of these gripes, this doesn't scale at all.

Pooka, I think you give them too much credit.

(I'll be traveling shortly. I'm willing to argue my point, but it'll have to be on Sunday.)

Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DeathofBees
Member
Member # 3862

 - posted      Profile for DeathofBees   Email DeathofBees         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
If a student realizes the information on wiki potentially comes from a schmuck just like him, he'll be less likely to count on it, I think.

Sadly, your low opinion of young people's ability to do quality research is shared by most "professional educators."

I think it's a fantastic technique and will really encourage students to write well and to have a reason to love writing. It is my experience that having an opportunity to publish one's writing where it may actually get read is a great way to learn to write better and with more enjoyment. In fact, one of the reasons I love Hatrack is that it's teaching me to write better. We have a pretty conversational style here, but frequently I have chances to really dig in and write lengthy, "article"-like posts. And, after all, what is writing but a conversation between writer and reader?

I also feel vaguely proud that the branch of the UW mentioned in the article is in my little hometown. [Big Grin]

Posts: 354 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Having spent some time on Wikipedia editing stuff, I think thats actually not a particularly good idea.

These students will presumably pick a more obscure topic, one example from the article being deforestation by Romans, since all the big topics will already be thoroughly covered. In these niche areas, you are horribly exposed to whatever random cross-section of people that may randomly come across the article.

Looking at that example article, the history is quite small with only one other editor. (also, thats a really tiny wimpy term paper, especially for a group of students having it worth 40%?)

I can see this being a good idea as a project in high school to teach media awareness, but not for university.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
porcelain girl
Member
Member # 1080

 - posted      Profile for porcelain girl   Email porcelain girl         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that this kind of writing is different from a term paper, but that doesn't make it unworthwhile. I think it's a great idea. Way to have students contribute to a technology most of them already use.

Interestingly enough, "they" ( I can't remember who conducted the test, but it was a bit on NPR a year or so ago) compared Wiki and Britannica for errors, and they were comparable. Britannica was a little huffy about it. [Smile]

Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post 
I think this is an excellent idea. Analysis of primary sources comes quite naturally with history papers, and often the point of such papers is not to win an argument but to make common the knowledge you have gained by study. I think teaching students to write this type of paper is brilliant.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
It's interesting, to say the least.

During some of Jeff's classes on subjects that they didn't have very good texts for, he would look the subject up on Wikipedia, not as a source, but as a shortcut to other resources that might be more helpful.

Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I once wrote a paper on Wikipedia and suggested almost exactly this.

However, I'd disagree with the weight of the grade. You learn a lot from editing Wikipedia (I know; I have experience on wikis), especially concerning having your work subject to public criticism and finding valid sources for research, but there's more to writing than that.

How much one learns from Wikipedia is dependent on how much one is willing to learn. Once you get the feel of a wiki, you're either going to hate it or love it. Some people can't stand all those people tearing your work to pieces; they take it personally. Others are enthralled by the chance to do something real for the world instead of writing for a grade.

I agree with the points of this professor. Wikipedia is a great tool and service, but it has to be introduced the right way, and instead of banning it in schools for potentially unreviewed content it should be promoted as a chance to exercise practical writing skills.

I once spoke with a few librarians from the Library of Congress and jokingly asked if Wikipedia was a reliable source. I fully expected a negative answer: the stereotype of modern librarians has been oriented around loathing of Wikipedia lately. The response was that it in fact was a great source, though it is by no means a shortcut that does all your work for you. Just as you should check the authors and validity of historical documents, you must be careful with what information you're using from Wikipedia. It is very excellent if the article points you to outside sources, as is Wikipedia policy.

Critics of Wikipedia need to focus more on the people who copy and paste articles from the Internet for school reports, and less on Wikipedia. Truth is, Wikipedia is a great source of information, and it is really a great experience to be even a small part of it. I think students can learn a lot by working on Wikipedia for school.

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by porcelain girl:
Interestingly enough, "they" ( I can't remember who conducted the test, but it was a bit on NPR a year or so ago) compared Wiki and Britannica for errors, and they were comparable. Britannica was a little huffy about it. [Smile]

The study in question had some pretty serious methodological problems. I think wikipedia is very useful, but traditional encyclopedias are certainly better for certain things.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
My husband uses wiki all the time without doublechecking sources and had never had a problem. Of course, formal mathematical proofs and definitions have a bit less debate then other things.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by porcelain girl:
Interestingly enough, "they" ( I can't remember who conducted the test, but it was a bit on NPR a year or so ago) compared Wiki and Britannica for errors, and they were comparable. Britannica was a little huffy about it. [Smile]

It was the science journal Nature. Britannica contested the methodology or whatever but then Nature stood by their findings. [Smile] I love wikipedia!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
Here is an interesting bit of information regarding Wikipedia. The average encyclopedia, say World Book, in printed form is about 3 feet long. The very best encyclopedia, say Britanica, is about 4 or 5 feet long. Wikipedia, if printed out, would be over 2 MILES long.

The advantage of Wikipedia is that it is probably the most vast single source of information assembled any where in the world. Further, entries are generated on interest, consequently, the entries are usually far longer and far more detailed than anything you would find in a standard encyclopedia.

In on line discussion, people are always referencing Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has whatever information you might need, from the very obscure to the very common, from ancient to very modern.

As to accuracy, I don't see that as much of a problem when you consider the accuracy of typical high school textbooks is atrocious. If the Pro's can't get it right, I'm not going to worry about Wikipedia.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Interestingly enough, "they" ( I can't remember who conducted the test, but it was a bit on NPR a year or so ago) compared Wiki and Britannica for errors, and they were comparable. Britannica was a little huffy about it.
If I remember correctly, they were comparable in percentage of errors, not in the quality of the errors. In other words, a wikipedia article on say, Cuba that misnamed the dictator as George Bush instead of Castro would be counted as an error the same as a Britannica article that transposed the last two characters in a date. So, yeah, error rate is comprable, but the potential for huge errors in content that drastically affect the reader's perception is much higher with wikipedia.

I think this is a terrible idea as well, for the same reasons stated. Writing for an encyclopedia is not scholarship - scholarship is making a case, stating it and defending it.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
As a scientist, I often write in a neutral tone, appropriate for an encyclopedia. I can also see the value in knowing how to put my information onto the internet (after I had published in a reputable journal).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2