tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7278144859690037262.post5168510831086026391..comments2024-03-26T23:23:58.382-04:00Comments on Reflections on Learning Success: Putting Wikipedia in its Place: Problems and PitfallsJoel Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18074164441955325675noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7278144859690037262.post-8153465934856270742012-04-09T08:13:39.907-04:002012-04-09T08:13:39.907-04:00I particularly liked this comment from RobMBA: &qu...I particularly liked this comment from RobMBA: "If people really understood what it was good for and how it was created, no student would be tempted to cite Wikipedia itself, because they would understand how to use the basics it presents to get familiar with the topic and find citable sources."<br />When used correctly, a resource like Wikipedia can be very useful, but when taken as truth without any critical analysis is the real problem.<br />The ability to think critically is absolutely critical to the success of an individual and therefore an organization, and the blind acceptance of web-based (or ANY) content is really a reflection of a lack of critical thinking, in my opinion.Joel Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18074164441955325675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7278144859690037262.post-61249512855962913642012-04-06T19:57:04.129-04:002012-04-06T19:57:04.129-04:00Great discussion topic here, Joel. I tend to thin...Great discussion topic here, Joel. I tend to think that if done right, Wikipedia can encourage critical thinking, fact checking, going deeper, looking at multiple perspectives, and drawing conclusions. Your experience of inaccuracies that you try to fix, only to have them rejected is a common one. The solution to that is to jump into the Talk page and negotiate the changes you're trying to make with the phantom deleter. Engaging in that discussion and dealing with another person's point of view is part of what makes drive-by defacing of articles less likely to stick. Of course, there are always those people who adopt a particular article that they have a strong opinion about and watch it like a hawk with no interest in coming to a consensus. Still, understanding how to read the talk and history pages will help ensure that the reader doesn't just believe whatever the last editor changed the article to. I wish that rather than ban student Wikipedia use (I know that's far from what you'd ever advocate), we would require them to make more comprehensive use of Wikipedia. By having them write and edit Wikipedia articles, students will learn how the sausage is made and better understand its limitations, in addition to learning at a deeper level the content related to the article they write. When it all comes down to it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as such, like you said, a jumping off point to learn about an unfamiliar topic. If people really understood what it was good for and how it was created, no student would be tempted to cite Wikipedia itself, because they would understand how to use the basics it presents to get familiar with the topic and find citable sources. If we don't teach them to write articles and edit them at a contributor level, however, I don't know how we can expect them to understand how to use it properly at a consumer level.robmbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483459468274711568noreply@blogger.com