Nitpicking Wikipedia’s Vulnerabilities
Most of you have likely heard about wikipedia by now (and perhaps even cited it in your research)! Over on Slashdot there is an interesting question about wikipedia that has a number of links to questionable practices in other forums for scholarship like peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, etc., followed by a group of techno-geeks offering their impressions of the value and worth of wikipedia. We’ll be taking a closer look at phenomena like wikipedia in Module 4, so some of the points and controversies here might be of interest to the group.
Be warned, Slashdot is not always the most polite of communities (though they are extremely resourceful!).
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/10/06/2234244.shtml?tid=146&tid=95
3 comments
1 Edward { 11.11.05 at 8:32 pm }
Hey Jeff et al.
Interesting conversation on Wiki edit rights.
It addresses the issues of authority, communal construction of knowledge and the ever present capitalistic pay-per use.
In my opinion limiting access through payment doesnt reflect the communal nature of a Wiki. While I agree the model works for controlling spam mail, knowledge construction should be communal.
The post that proposed versioning the edits on a betapage to protect exisiting content is likely the best idea. If the exchange of ideas is going to cause disagreement..the constructive development of ideas should have forum.
Upon momentary reflection, Ive used information from a Wiki to kickstart research…but I’ve never contributed content to one.
ANyone else have authorship phobia? 🙂 Edward
2 Micah { 11.14.05 at 5:43 pm }
I found the quote “As dangerous as it is to trust unverified information, it can be just as bad to make prior judgments discounting information because the source happens to be anonymous” to be very interesting (Slashdot). Many people do not like to identify them selves on line for privacy reasons. Tons of information that is found on the internet is valid information although it does not come from a trusted source. For this reason it is best to be able to think critically about the content that is printed in any form.
I think that the Wiki is a great tool for both educational and private community building. What I find difficult about wiki is the lack of security that text has is this writing environment. People are able to edit, add to or delete another persons contribution without their knowledge.
Personally in a high school level teaching environment I would avoid wiki because of the lack of security. In a post secondary environment I see wiki as being a valuable tool because of the collaborative environment that it can offer. It can be a community building tool in a “free” environment through which people are able to offer their information.
Micah
3 Angela { 11.15.05 at 12:13 am }
Hi All,
I found the debate about wiki to be interesting. I have also used wiki as a resource, assuming that what is written there is factual for the most part. I agree with using it as a starting point for research on a topic, for overviews or general type info. Because many are able to read the info provided, and correct/edit what they see as inacurate or incorrect, I felt more comforatable with the info than I maybe would with other informational sites. Having now read the comments, I can see how untrue this could be. Although I doubt a six year old would change the content of certain information, a college student could very well change something he or she sees as incorrect. Who is to be the judge about the authenticity of an entrant or editor? I acknowledge that something like an overall editor would be beneficial and may well be necessary in the future. How frustrating to consider yourself to an expert on something, enter your information, only to have it changed by someone who may clearly have no idea of the subject at hand. The original entry should always stay available somehow.
I really liked the more positive comment about wikipedia, like “For me the best thing about wikipedia is the concept behind it. A collaboration of people, working to increase the sum of human knowledge, because the sum of accumulated knowledge is something that is greater than its parts.” (fishdan) A comment which to me, signifies the true nature of the wiki. Many minds are better tha one. There just needs to be some sort of accountability or certification, I guess. Or does there?? We trust that those who change/edit info are truly doing so because they believe it to be the more correct of the two entries. We cannot ignore those jokers out there, who are highly intelligent, yet have that streak inside them to enter or edit info incorrectly, yet make it seem authentic.
We as teachers must educate our students not to assume everything on the Internet is true, regardless of where the info is located and found. This is a tough task, but one that must be taught, for it is not an option to simply provide the sites for students to use all the time. So, I guess, as a teacher, I will allow students to use wikipedia only if they are able to verify the info with other sources.
Angela