I've done it. I bet you have to. Cheated. Taken the short cut. Forget hardcore research. Google returned too many possibilities. Wikipedia had it all in one location. I admit it isn't always the responsible choice, even if it is convenient. But maybe it should be. Is Wikipedia spreading rumors or trying to become a reliable source?
I was a little anxious about reading the article since it is co-authored by my professor, but I figured I didn't have to post anything unless it was worthy of such a risk. It is worth the risk.
I still don't trust Wikipedia as the end all resource, but should I ever trust only one source? In high school, we were required to have three sources before we could make a claim. Shouldn't we still be doing responsible research, even if it is on the internet? Crovitz and Smoot say so.
Wikipedia is really a Web 2.0 platform, right? I mean, it thrives on user interaction and collaboration. The user is the contributor. Most teachers hate Wikipedia because the information is constantly evolving which makes yesterday's information obsolete. What a pain in the rear if you are actually checking student sources. But wikis are meant to be a collaboration, right? Constantly evolving?
In the land of Millennials who expect up-to-the-minute information on their research, where else can they go?
We all have friends who tell us things as fact only to find out they were misinformed or confused. So it is a safe bet that Wikipedia has some of those friends too. Just like we learn which friends to trust and which stories to believe, we have to be as diligent in our research.
Wikipedia isn't of the devil. If we take the time to validate the information we steal garner from Wikipedia, we could actually learn something. Like critical thinking. Sound research. Responsible consumerism.
The example from the article uses the entry on Abraham Lincoln. We all know something about Honest Abe. So the authors show how to use Wikipedia as a scaffold to greater things. Look for something that makes you go, "Huh?" And that is where your research starts. And then you become a contributor to Wikipedia. And you become a responsible producer, not just a digital native, but a responsible producer of information.
Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia is what we make it. It can be our friend if we know how to use it, and it can be our foe if we are lazy. Really, Wikipedia isn't the problem. They don't hide the fact that everyone on the planet can contribute. We are irresponsible consumers of information if we don't follow up with our own research.
Enough about Wikipedia in general. It is time to address some other points from the AWESOME article from Crovitz and Smoot. (Yes, I am aware there is no neutrality in that sentence.) Using Wikipedia as a scaffold to independent research is an awesome idea because it forces students to read what is already available and then actually think about what else might be missing. That counts as critical thinking. Editing an article on Wikipedia requires a significant effort and ability. The use of neutrality in tone is essential, and not all students would make suitable contributions with an immediate response. Because it requires significant effort to edit coherently and responsibly edit an article, it forces students to write, rewrite, edit, research and collaborate. All awesome things. And they can do all of that with an article that actually interests them. Entertain them and educate them all at once.
I really liked that the article gave step-by-step instructions for classroom application for Wikipedia editing. I think it would be cool to have students research their high school to edit or create a Wikipedia article. In a previous post in response to iWrite, I talked about speaking to digital natives in their language. I am pretty sure that Wikipedia is the language of these natives. Might as well use it to our advantage. The verdict is in: Wikipedia is a friend.
I think it's certainly do-able, perhaps with the teacher as the stenographer of student work (if direct editing of or access to Wikipedia is problematic).
ReplyDelete