Post #2 - Judging the Quality of Wikis and Non-vetted Sites
I do not view wikipedia as a resource for my student's outside of how anyone would view the Reader's Digest as a source. I might read an Wikipedia piece, go to the work sited to find the original article and read from there. I feel it is important to view source articles. I do not use wikipedia's a source but may refer to it as a quick check on something, but prefer to dig further to other articles. I guess the point being that we often have death hoaxes gone wild when someone adds a death date to a Wikipedia- So how reliable is the information posted. So I would think multiple sources should be quoted besides wikipedia. I use youtube as medium for modeling teaching practice for my teachers. I also love how it allows me access to real people working on real concepts. As long as I preview it for content and make sure that it fits my intended purpose- I don't have a problem if teachers are doing the same thing.
Hello Dannielle,
ReplyDeleteAs Wikipedia evolves do you think that you may consider using it as a resource in the future? In one of the articles posted a study was done comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia to Britannica stating that Britannica had 2.92 mistakes per article and Wikipedia had 3.86 mistakes per article.
I think we need to teach student to use a wiki as a resource or the launching of research. I think they are a good place to start, but educators need to teach students what makes a wiki good or bad. It is part of teaching research and recording references.
ReplyDeleteAs Vicky stated, there is a substantial counterargument that it may be as accurate as more 'traditional' sources. Per my email, these sources are not infallible. Looking at the citations is a start, but as I mentioned from my own experiences (i.e., people incorrectly representing my comments when they cite my own work), showing references can be a decoy.
ReplyDelete