Comments on: Wikipedia garbage? http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/ Education and Technology by Steve Dembo Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:42:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Steve http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34332 Steve Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:37:27 +0000 http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34332 Wow, dig that! Somehow I never clicked on that discuss link before. Very very cool. More reference type sites need that sort of link to objectively discuss the content contained therein. Wow, dig that! Somehow I never clicked on that discuss link before. Very very cool. More reference type sites need that sort of link to objectively discuss the content contained therein.

]]> By: Jon Stoper http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34229 Jon Stoper Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:38:16 +0000 http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34229 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leonard_Peltier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leonard_Peltier

]]> By: Jon Stoper http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34228 Jon Stoper Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:37:41 +0000 http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34228 One thing that can be said about the wikipedia is that in the case of contravertial subjects, "discussion pages" provide for a place to debate about the language and content used. Thus, even points of view which aren't objectively neutral have a place, and debate is promoted. Here is <a>.</a> One thing that can be said about the wikipedia is that in the case of contravertial subjects, “discussion pages” provide for a place to debate about the language and content used. Thus, even points of view which aren’t objectively neutral have a place, and debate is promoted. Here is
.

]]> By: Jack MacLeod http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34227 Jack MacLeod Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:58:58 +0000 http://www.teach42.com/2005/12/29/wikipedia-garbage/#comment-34227 Bravo Steve. I suspect that Wikipedia is no more acceptable at the University level than Britannica is. Presumably, by University, a student will be moving more towards primary sources than encyclopedic summaries. That being said, I have no problem with Wikipedia in P/K-12. If Britannica is acceptable then Wikipedia should be as well. Of course, that assumes that we teach our students something about assessing bias and looking at more than one source when doing research. I suspect that much, or at least some, of the concern over Wikipedia comes from teachers who have accepted papers with only one source in the past. For some reason, we believed that Britannica (or whatever encyclopedia was handy) was right! If nothing else, the Wikipedia debate may open our collective eyes to the inherent bias in all writing and push us to start teaching critical thinking skills. Of course, many of 'us' may not have the critical thinking skills ourself OR not know how to teach them. Happy Holidays. Jack Bravo Steve. I suspect that Wikipedia is no more acceptable at the University level than Britannica is. Presumably, by University, a student will be moving more towards primary sources than encyclopedic summaries. That being said, I have no problem with Wikipedia in P/K-12. If Britannica is acceptable then Wikipedia should be as well. Of course, that assumes that we teach our students something about assessing bias and looking at more than one source when doing research. I suspect that much, or at least some, of the concern over Wikipedia comes from teachers who have accepted papers with only one source in the past. For some reason, we believed that Britannica (or whatever encyclopedia was handy) was right! If nothing else, the Wikipedia debate may open our collective eyes to the inherent bias in all writing and push us to start teaching critical thinking skills. Of course, many of ‘us’ may not have the critical thinking skills ourself OR not know how to teach them.

Happy Holidays. Jack

]]>