Changing and advancing technology has forever altered the way people communicate. This is true in our day-to-day communication, yet it also extends to education and how we share and communicate knowledge. And though the ways and means by which we communicate have changed, common threads are visible when exploring knowledge sharing throughout history.
One common thread concerns the power of amateurs in creating sources of knowledge. Our notes from Module 1 look back to 1857 and the Oxford English Dictionary, which relied on contributions from amateur philologists across England and the world to compile words for the dictionary. These individual contributors, amateur as they may have been, contributed to the English language as we know it today.
While the Oxford English Dictionary is looked upon as a reliable resource, many resources that rely on the contributions of amateurs – for example, Wikipedia – struggle with credibility (Anthony, 2009). But should such resources be completely dismissed, given their immense knowledge sharing possibilities?
In order to gain from the sharing of knowledge, people must first have access to said knowledge. Sites like Wikipedia offer this access, free and unlimited to any who choose to seek it. However, as mentioned, there can be concerns with the reliability of sources that have been constructed only by groups of amateurs or unknown sources (regardless of what such groups have achieved throughout history).
Formal education offers students access to vetted research and resources, but often this access is restricted to students who have paid for the privilege of accessing this information. What if, as Willinksy (2002) argues there should be, there was public access to this scholarly publishing and the sharing of vetted sources of knowledge was free and available to all? This would remove many of the credibility issues that people have concerning sites like Wikipedia, while enabling sharing of knowledge at a massive scale. Not only that, but think how the power of amateurs could grow if more people had open access to such research…
This leads to questions posed by Willinksy (2002) about whether new publishing systems can serve Dewey’s democratic ideal — “to enable individuals to continue their own education” (1916, pp. 100–101)? Will providing greater public access help to better understand and extend Dewey’s democratic theory of education? Can these new systems improve the sharing of knowledge that’s currently freely offered by amateur-created content from sites like Wikipedia? Or are we making too many assumptions regarding people’s desire for this kind of information?
According to James O’Donnell and the Cambridge Forum (1999), providing more public access will help realize Dewey’s theory of education. O’Donnell argues that the democratization of education gives power to people who may have never had it. And both O’Donnell and Willinsky discuss how innovations in technology have made it easier for this democratization to happen.
This leads to questions around the potential information overload that comes with being able to share information so much more easily. Or as put in the Cambridge forum (1999), how do we swim through the swamp of information? The word swamp has negative connotations in this context, but if we don’t wade through the swamp do we deal with the drought that restricted access to knowledge resources brings? There’s no doubt that advancements in technology have improved our ability to share knowledge. It seems we are still grappling with these changes.
References
Anthony, D., Smith, S. W., & Williamson, T. (2009). Reputation and reliability in collective goods: The case of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Rationality and Society, 21(3), 283-306.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
O’Donnell, James J. (Presenter). (1999). Cambridge Forum [Radio broadcast]. Cambridge, MA: Public Radio
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Zale Darnel
June 5, 2018 — 7:48 pm
Hi Katie
Great post, I love you topic. If reliable information was freely accessible how different would the world be?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I often use Wikipedia as a starting point for things that I do not know or understand. It’s a quick overview and I don’t care that it could be wrong because I usually use the information as a starting point to conduct my own research. Just to be cheeky I asked Wikipedia why it was not a reliable source and this is what it gave me.
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism. Biographies of living persons are especially vulnerable to this issue. Some edits on Wikipedia that are in error are sometimes fixed, however because Wikipedia cannot monitor contributions made by millions of users, there are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, and even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a source for ‘fact-checking’ (Wikipedia).”
I think most people that understand research know that Wikipedia is a tool for reference and not to be taken a vetted or reliable information. However, that leads to the idea that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous. If all research was freely available, I believe that advancement would be great… but, it also opens the door for greater confusion and misunderstanding. The best example I can think of is people who are sick with something minor….. let’s say a headache. The internet provides quick and easy information. So I Googled it. If I just took what I read a face value then I am having a stroke right now says google, because the first article I found was “How a Headache May Be a Sign of a Stroke”. Point being that free access to information does not mean free access to understanding and that I believe is the real issue.
Doherty, C., & Chaves, C. (n.d.). Can A Stroke Cause a Headache? Retrieved from https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-a-headache-may-be-a-sign-of-a-stroke-1719596
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (2018, May 21). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
bradley forsyth
June 5, 2018 — 9:02 pm
Hi Katie,
You made an interesting point regarding empowering amateurs through public access to research. Prior to the start of this course I had a discussion with a colleague at the university I work at regarding the notion of “open pedagogy” – where learning happens built on open resources. I was especially intrigued by the focus of student work being an authentic piece of public knowledge (which is of course what we are doing with this blog), rather than what David Wiley (2013) refers to as “disposable assignments” which add no value to public knowledge.
I have similar questions regarding the flood of information that open access to research may cause, particularly projects and online communities in which resources are student or amateur based, in terms of quality control. It is crucial for students, and the general public for that matter, to learn research skills and be able to think critically about the information they are being bombarded with on a daily basis. It was interesting to note that during the broadcast “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” (1999) it was argued that college students tend to be more permeable and skeptical regarding information they are presented with compared to students twenty to thirty years ago (at the time of the recording) because they have more easily accessible information. When I think of this topic I am constantly reminded of the dangers of social media sites such as Facebook that utilize algorithms to personalize the news that appears to users, which only serves to reinforce the reader’s personal bias, omitting the value of being presented with contradicting opinions.
John Willinsky’s (2002) comments on Dewey’s democratic ideal of education extending beyond formal schooling and his desire to “work against an undesirable split between the experience gained in more direct associations and what is acquired in school” resonated with me as well (p.6). I currently work assessing transfer credit in a post-secondary setting which calls for researching educational institutions domestically, as well as internationally that are often quite different from our own. I grapple daily with trying to define the line of what is to be recognized as “academic” transfer credit. While we have guidelines to follow, it becomes increasingly difficult as some institutions or even countries are becoming more progressive in their education systems. The post-secondary education system at times feels archaic in the face of an increasing number of ways in which people can learn and gain skills outside of formal education. Thankfully our institution has a great prior learning recognition system that can recognize non-traditional education and training as academic credit, but it will be interesting to see how post-secondary institutions continue to evolve as employers increasingly recognize skills gained from non-traditional learning.
One concept I found particularly interesting from research in a previous course is micro-credentialing, such as Mozilla’s Open Badges project, which awards digital achievement badges which can be displayed and shared. In this fashion individuals can fulfill Dewey’s ideal of a lifelong embrace of education while being recognized for their non-traditional learning.
Like you, however, I also wonder if there is a sizeable percentage of the population that would even take advantage of greater access to research, particularly in a time when we are so accustomed to scrolling through information at such a rapid pace before moving onto the next headline or image that grabs our attention.
References
Engell J. & O’Donnell J. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace. [Audio File]. Cambridge Forums. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Wiley, D. (2013, October 21). What is open pedagogy? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975.
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.