Discussion Question # 4: Reliability of Wikis & Blogs
Comments(4) A “lively discussion” (Debbie’s term) appears to be continuing about Amina’s concerns that an unreliability of online content, particularly in wikis and blogs, could (as Amina put it in her Discussion #2 post) “create a society that perpetuates inequality where wiki and blog information developed an ignorant community of learners because the education provided was not properly manage(d), controlled or overseen.” The issue struck a sensitive nerve among our EDIT772 community. Theresa countered with a very pointed question: Whether one-sided history books are “any better.” And while Matt, in his blog post, appeared to concede that point, he noted an additional problem of online content – it’s malleability, if you will – that is, even when errors are corrected, “there is still a lag when errors are treated as fact and also some errors can remain for extended periods of time.”
I think this discussion goes to the heart of the question about whether Web 2.0 services are valid learning tools. In a related post (Discussion # 2), I mentioned that being in the news business, I’m very cautious about using Wikipedia as a citation for facts for publication. So I always verify information through the links to primary sources before using any of that information.
In my view, I think the solution is to make sure that users of these online tools are trained to think carefully and critically about whatever information is presented – to test it against other sources, dig deeply until the information is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
I really did not intend to create such a firestorm … honestly 🙂
I feel you have really captured the crux of my argument in your closing comments. These web 2.0 tools have phenomenal abilities to further revolutionize education and instruction. Your remark that “users of these online tools … [should be] trained to think carefully and critically about whatever information is presented” was the intention behind my original statements. My experience working in a low socio-economic community with teachers who are untrained and/or balk at any requirement that forces them to use technology, was what I held in my mind as I wrote my post. When the teachers who are facilitating, guiding or directing web based learning know so little of the technology under their fingertips and in turn do not critically monitor and scuplt online learning environments can inadvertently perpetuate inequal access to knowledge. My proverbial soapbox these past few years, holds that so much more needs to be offered and provided in the professional development for teachers who will need to use and adopt web technologies as part of their course structure.
I think I did more now to add kindle to this fire (seems I just can’t help but to insert foot in mouth) …
You did not create a firestorm – you shed important light. It seems to me that this issue of providing development for educations is something that major charitable organizations should be pouring grant money into. Very critical, as y ou point out.
I think the way you approach using Wikipedia in your job in the news business is likely the the best way to take advantage of Wikipedia’s strengths while minimizing its problems. You can get a good overall start with Wikipedia and then use the primary sources linked within Wikipedia to substantiate any facts. This is likely the standard should be for using Wikipedia in an academic environment–I would imagine it likely is.
Interestingly, Wikipedia offers some good guidance on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability