The next task this course has given me is to explore Wikis. For such a simple tool, these little things have created a pretty significant amount of push back since their creation. Do I dare say that the ever popular Wikipedia site is part of the cause of this?
In my exploration of wikis I've learned some things, and here's my thoughts.
Wikis are actually a rather simple concept. Wikis are a space online that allows for collaborators to work together simultaneously on a task (most often writing of some sort). I've you've ever worked on a Google Doc with others then you've worked on a wiki (a private one). Now the trouble wikis have had is the collaborators part. A wiki can be public or private. A public wiki means that anyone, and I mean ANYONE (even those trolls that live their evils lives online), can edit or delete the content. This is the piece that lead to the initial "Don't cite wikipedia" hysteria because any Joe Schmoe could jump on any site and change anything. Now wikipedia and other sites have created many different levels of protections to inhibit, prevent or drastically slow down these types of acts, but I'll talk more about that later.
A Wiki can also be created as a private wiki. This is the type of Wiki that I think has the most educational benefits in a classroom. As the creator of this type of Wiki can can invite or approve of the only users. You can create it as a public read-only and private edited, or simply a private only (read and edit). The benefits of these kinds of wikis are endless. Any type of task that asks your students to work together on something writing based can be done on a wiki. As a teacher there are many free options for wiki hosting sites (such as wikispaces) or even many online classroom systems (Blackboard for example) has options for creating a wiki within that site. As far as wiki classroom use in student collaboration goes- I'm sold, but research is another story.
The most interesting thing about this wikipedia research is the varying information regarding the accuracy of wikipedia. I come from the school of "Don't cite wikipedia", but sure enough where do I go the first time I need to know something quickly about a topic... Wikipedia. Why is it that Wikipedia is accurate enough to satisfy my need and acceptance of this new knowledge, but it is not accurate enough to cite?
Well, simply put what you write MUST be as undoubtedly accurate as possible. With the entire premise of Wikipedia being user created and updated, then that adds the potential for doubt. So yes, while Wikipedia has an EXTENSIVE accuracy dispute process, there is still the chance that the exact moment that someone posts inaccurate information about the topic you are researching could be the same time you are accessing it. Slim chance, but chance none the less.
So I am torn, I don't really know what my entire opinion is on using Wikipedia (or wikis in general) for knowledge research. The majority of the articles that I've read through this course and online are all rather outdated (2005/2007), so while that doesn't seem like too long ago, that's 6-8 years in the world of online tools, which makes it nearly archaic. I've heard mumblings that wikipedia is slowly becoming a more respected research outlet, but I'm sure that it will never reach peer-edited journal reviewed information.
Wiki's in Student classroom use: Two Thumbs Up! Give it a try.
Wiki's for general knowledge (aka Wikipedia): Absolutely, but always take the information with a grain of salt. Double check from another source if something smells fishy.
Wiki's for Research: Ahhhh, not there yet. Sure take a look, maybe use it to get a broad idea of what you're looking into, but use more respected resources to double check and cite from.
No comments:
Post a Comment