http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7962912.stm
" Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, it is claimed. A review of the primary school curriculum in England will be published in a final report next month. "
(from WMUK list via Thomas Dalton)
- d.
2009/3/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7962912.stm
" Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, it is claimed. A review of the primary school curriculum in England will be published in a final report next month. "
(from WMUK list via Thomas Dalton)
It should be made clear that this is just a proposal from the person doing the review, it is some way off actually being included in the National Curriculum. Hopefully WMUK will be able to get involved if it is, though - we've been discussing working with schools for a while already, so it looks like we'll have more schools interested in having us visit if this goes ahead!
Until the UK decides to block access again because of some album cover art. Then what do the teachers do?
Angela
2009/3/25 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
Until the UK decides to block access again because of some album cover art. Then what do the teachers do?
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography!
2009/3/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography!
Well, they know we can tell *instantly* when it happens. And they do answer Mike Godwin's emails asking "are you blocking us?" I mean, I don't like what they do or how they do it, but they're honest enough about it.
- d.
I had a hard time learning to eliminate warnings from Grammatik. RTFM. I ignored the rule on sentence length like I ignore the rule on sentence fragments, today. The hardest rule is activation, where you might need to insert pronouns like: The donkey was kicked. Someone kicked the donkey.
Wikis might be a nice trick for a teacher. She could mark grammar and spelling by correcting it. The student would see a diff. OR, she could get peers from the next grade or two to do that. Just call a geek to install a server. Then there is still penmanship, Matters of Content, and Matters of Organization (and probably matters of style) for the accepted and understood revisions. Three fifths of the mark on an essay are not mechanical.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140903251426vcd5a376ld460df78b57cb6e5@mail.gmail.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7962912.stm
" Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, it is claimed. A review of the primary school curriculum in England will be published in a final report next month. "
(from WMUK list via Thomas Dalton)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi all,
On 3/26/09, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
" Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, it is claimed. A review of the primary school curriculum in England will be published in a final report next month. "
</snip>
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
On the first point, blogging, I feel that /most/ (not all) primary school students (a) lack the skills of expression necessarily to maintain a quality blog, (b) should spend time developing life communication skills instead of overspecializing on Internet discussion, and (c) have plentiful opportunities to express themselves in other, more important ways.
On the second point, I would like to point out that (a) history will almost certainly be around in 1000 years (exceptions might include golden meteorites and acts of God, etc.), (b) Wikipedia and Twitter almost certainly won't—in fact, I'm fairly sure that in even ten years time there will be a "next best thing", and Wikipedia will not be nearly as popular as it once was (and is), and (c) lessons learnt from history may be applied to the entirety of one's life and can affect all of humanity, while Wikipedia and Twitter most certainly cannot.
Anyway, that's my few pence.
—Thomas Larsen
Oh, and just to clarify—by "golden meteorites and acts of God, etc." I meant that pending disastrous events wiping out humanity and thus our ability to record history, history is certain to exist in 1000 years.
Cheers,
—Thomas Larsen
2009/3/27 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
Remember the good old days before LiveJournal, when teenagers *didn't want* you to read their diary?
- d.
Sorry, but diaries serve a different function. They are for grand machinations and secret crushes. Blogging is more for worldly thoughts and that is my particular forte.
Best, Bill
________________________________ From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:22:15 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
2009/3/27 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
Remember the good old days before LiveJournal, when teenagers *didn't want* you to read their diary?
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools.
How so?
Michael
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools.
How so?
Primarily in teaching how *not* to use it!
Naturally primary (and early secondary) education should include teaching how to use the Internet in learning. Given Wikipedia's prominence, it would of course be correct for such teaching to include the proper use of Wikipedia. Students might be encouraged not to regurgitate whole paragraphs from Wikipedia.
Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject (and supremely history).
Sam
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
(cackles, flees)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter taking the place of history in primary schools.
To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools.
How so?
Primarily in teaching how *not* to use it!
Naturally primary (and early secondary) education should include teaching how to use the Internet in learning. Given Wikipedia's prominence, it would of course be correct for such teaching to include the proper use of Wikipedia. Students might be encouraged not to regurgitate whole paragraphs from Wikipedia.
Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject (and supremely history).
Sam
-- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
(cackles, flees)
That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over the internet, but it is static.
The scary thing is that would probably work.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic
version
from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get
a
safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go
stay
out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
(cackles, flees)
That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over the internet, but it is static.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
The scary thing is that would probably work.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic
version
from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get
a
safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go
stay
out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
(cackles, flees)
That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over the internet, but it is static.
I suspect the "U MOM sucks cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away.
Durova wrote:
The scary thing is that would probably work.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic
version
from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get
a
safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go
stay
out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
(cackles, flees)
That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over the internet, but it is static.
I suspect the "UR MOM sucks TEH cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away.
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, doc wrote:
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school.
What about http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ??
I'm always surprised I don't see that "promoted" more.
--Noah--
Noah Salzman wrote:
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, doc wrote:
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school.
What about http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ??
I'm always surprised I don't see that "promoted" more.
--Noah--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You'll get more articles in Encarta or Britanicca - and they WILL have all the core ones, rather than a selection of what's been OK on wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use the schools' wikipedia?
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:25 AM, doc wrote:
You'll get more articles in Encarta or Britanicca - and they WILL have all the core ones, rather than a selection of what's been OK on wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use the schools' wikipedia?
Because they want their 9-year-old to use a free Encyclopedia (and perhaps indoctrinate them to the Wikipedia "brand") but they don't want them stumbling over the "adult oriented" content.
--Noah--
doc wrote:
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school.
My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, and he managed.
Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, and he managed.
Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
Ec
The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable.
I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog.
The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want us, they really do - we always said they would".
Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. It does not require a high level of education - as the, em, abilities of our community adequately demonstrates. Indeed, the average 40-something classroom teacher is more likely to know less than the kids. But what the children *can't* teach themselves (and what on-line communication drastically requires) is basic literacy skills.
You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation.
Scott
2009/3/27 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki.
Yes. Perhaps we need lessons in how to get the kids *off* Bebo.
- d.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, and he managed.
Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
Ec
on 3/27/09 6:14 PM, doc at doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable.
I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog.
The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want us, they really do - we always said they would".
Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. It does not require a high level of education - as the, em, abilities of our community adequately demonstrates. Indeed, the average 40-something classroom teacher is more likely to know less than the kids. But what the children *can't* teach themselves (and what on-line communication drastically requires) is basic literacy skills.
Excellent post, Scott!
You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation.
And skills in verbal communication, in-person, face-to-face.
Marc Riddell
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable.
I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog.
The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want us, they really do - we always said they would".
As ever, I'm a little more optimistic than you, Scott. I think there is a potential use for members of the Wikipedia community to go into schools and explain how Wikipedia should be used because
1. children /will/ encounter Wikipedia; 2. they need to know how it can be helpful and how it can be harmful; and 3. teachers are unlikely to be able to impart this knowledge.
You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation.
And Latin.
Sam Korn wrote:
As ever, I'm a little more optimistic than you, Scott. I think there is a potential use for members of the Wikipedia community to go into schools and explain how Wikipedia should be used because
- children /will/ encounter Wikipedia;
- they need to know how it can be helpful and how it can be harmful; and
- teachers are unlikely to be able to impart this knowledge.
You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation.
And Latin.
Dum spiro, spero
However, Children will encounter many things that are helpful and harmful: MacDonalds, Disney, Microsoft, Celebrity Big Brother, and the blessed Royal Bank of Scotland.
Whilst the odd guest speaker from such organisations appearing for an hour on a dull Friday at the end of term no doubt has its merits, I wouldn't start developing your agenda for "Wikipedia Classes" anytime soon. Or maybe youtube should be there too.
If given a good general education, kids will, for the most, figure such stuff out for themselves. And in any case, the law of technological evolution says by the time primary kids hit the workplace, Wikipedia may well be as relevant as my intimate knowledge of the ZX Spectrum.
Scott
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable.
Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us".
i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable.
Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us".
i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending.
The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden.
2009/3/28 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Carcharoth wrote:
Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us".
i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic.
Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending.
The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden.
Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/28 doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com:
Carcharoth wrote:
Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us".
i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic.
Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending.
The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden.
Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability.
Though to take the other tack for a minute, as a general purpose encyclopedia (with niches of speciality and depth), Wikipedia doesn't use all the diversity of sources for most topics. There is still editorial discretion over how to present a particular article or topic, and that is where bias can still be present, through the omission of sources. There is little point someone (child or adult) going "Wow! 20 different sources used and listed in this article", if the article fails to use several of the most reliable and authoritative sources on a topic. And if a topic has thousands of sources, Wikipedia, even if it uses 100 sources, can't claim to be distilling the diversity of the thousands of sources (though hopefully it would point to books that do approach that level of detail).
i.e. learn from using Wikipedia that multiple sources and judging their reliability are essential, but don't presume any particular Wikipedia article (even if featured) is comprehensive in terms of sources. Even the best featured article is still just a starting point (albeit usually a very good one).
Carcharoth
2009/3/28 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
i.e. learn from using Wikipedia that multiple sources and judging their reliability are essential, but don't presume any particular Wikipedia article (even if featured) is comprehensive in terms of sources. Even the best featured article is still just a starting point (albeit usually a very good one).
Of course. Has anyone claimed that Wikipedia is free of bias? We try and minimise the bias (and, I think, do a pretty decent job), but we'll never eliminate it entirely.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability.
Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow.
Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic, because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to Children - full of well referenced books.
However. 1) Most of Wikipedia is NOT written from multiple sources. Indeed some of out better written articles are basically mono-authored and use the author's preferred source. 2) The reason kids don't read the highly referenced works is not because "sources are evil" because they are often not written in a manner accessible to children. Wikipedia here is no different. Many of out bloated or complex featured articles are not simple and not particularly child friendly. 3) Read the School textbook, you are less likely to be reading downright bullshit.
doc wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability.
Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow.
Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic, because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to Children - full of well referenced books.
There are certainly some false dichotomies flying around here - utterly typical of discussions of education, I might say. Reference works (such as WP) are not meant to displace textbooks, anyway. Critical skills run in parallel to straight learning: sometimes they supplement learning, and at other times (IMX) they can get in the way (but that is more with adult learners). Providing references on a per-fact basis (as WP's online style encourages) is not providing a bibliography of full scope. And so on.
Charles
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with the fallout when students report back to class asking why their curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would?
—C.W.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with the fallout when students report back to class asking why their curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would?
Does that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
Carcharoth
[Correcting previous post - can't Wikipedia have editable posts?]
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with the fallout when students report back to class asking why their curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would?
Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
[Correcting previous post - can't Wikipedia have editable posts?]
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with the fallout when students report back to class asking why their curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would?
Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
Carcharoth
So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit?
I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
[Correcting previous post - can't Wikipedia have editable posts?]
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths.
History textbooks tend to lie by omission but the board of education will be loathe to approve anything that explicitly encourages students to look elsewhere for the director's cut. They don't want to deal with the fallout when students report back to class asking why their curriculum bears no mention of the Mỹ Lai massacre, the bombing of Dresden, Operation Northwoods, the Bonus Army, the School of the Americas handbook, Martin Luther King's FBI fan-mail, Jonestown, or the Tuskegee Study, etc. Indeed, who would?
Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki?
Not sure such bodies are accountable (at least not in the UK). Definitely not elected in the UK.
Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit?
I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.
Yes, and Wikipedia should reflect that. The problem is people thinking that Wikipedia is authoritative. If the editing is true to the sources, Wikipedia works well. If it isn't, then Wikipedia doesn't work well. The disclaimer should read: "please check everything written here against the sources provided - if there are no sources, the article cannot be relied upon". The trick is to harness the editing power of skilled (and trained?) volunteers to write the articles, and combine that with the expertise needed to independently fact-check, review, verify and sign off on an article.
The former ("anyone can edit") doesn't involve any selection for skills or training (though some natural self-selection and community-driven selection takes place), and the latter ("review by experts") doesn't scale.
The result is "reader beware". And it's always been like that. If someone using Wikipedia only learns that they need to check and assess the sources of information - any information - then they have learnt something invaluable.
Carcharoth
2009/3/28 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki?
Not sure such bodies are accountable (at least not in the UK). Definitely not elected in the UK.
The UK National Curriculum is determined by parliament, I believe - definitely an elected body.
2009/3/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/28 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Not sure such bodies are accountable (at least not in the UK). Definitely not elected in the UK.
The UK National Curriculum is determined by parliament, I believe - definitely an elected body.
(I believe it's the English National Curriculum, not a UK-wide thing.)
It may also be worth pointing out that the Schools Wikipedia, compiled to the National Curriculum, is proving vastly popular with teachers around the world. And, remember, it was created not as an attempt at a Wikipedia-on-DVD, but as a practical workaday encyclopedia for SOS Children's Villages to use in their own schools.
So if it's not up to scratch as an encyclopedia to use with the National Curriculum, saying "don't use it" is unlikely to fix the situation - instead, the most effective approach would be to make it better and fix problems.
- d.
Examination Question: Read the following
"Sarah H. Cleveland is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School. She is a noted advocate of the use of international law in U.S. courts.
In her widely celebrated 2007 Civil Procedure final exam, she referenced Wikipedia to highlight how fraught personal jurisdiction issues have become in the Internet age. Students were asked to analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit could establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable State, so long as the defamation created harm in that State.
She is a graduate of Brown University, University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School."
Taken from Wikipedia's article on Prof. Cleveland. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Cleveland&oldid=25577119...
Students should now write an essay on one of the following:
1) In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in that state.
Or
2) Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
doc wrote:
Examination Question: Read the following
"Sarah H. Cleveland is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School. She is a noted advocate of the use of international law in U.S. courts.
In her widely celebrated 2007 Civil Procedure final exam, she referenced Wikipedia to highlight how fraught personal jurisdiction issues have become in the Internet age. Students were asked to analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit could establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable State, so long as the defamation created harm in that State.
She is a graduate of Brown University, University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School."
Taken from Wikipedia's article on Prof. Cleveland. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Cleveland&oldid=25577119...
Students should now write an essay on one of the following:
- In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly
defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in that state.
Or
- Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apologies if I misunderstand. Are you asking the participants of this mlist to do the assignment? Am I missing something, or am I obtuse?
Cheers - Jon
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:23 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
Students should now write an essay on one of the following:
- In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly
defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in that state.
Or
- Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.
Pass.
I'm actually going through a list of unmarked BLPs (a small list of 300 articles, part of a much bigger selection). It would be interesting to see what I'm seeing there is representative of the whole, or not.
See the following:
AN discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
Worklists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential
The 300 I'm working through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Sandbox3
Further thoughts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Biographical_and_new_articles_c...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carcharoth/Biographical_and_new_artic...
Old proposal I made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Ar...
Carcharoth
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:32 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.
Well, I know everyone's mileage will vary within certain constraints but these are examples of things I sure as hell didn't learn about in school, and might have eventually died without knowing about if not for Wikipedia.
I know it's as much my fault as anyone else's. I mean you can say "search the fucking web" or "go read books in the library till they kick you out" but that can only work if you have some idea what to look for.
Unfortunately I don't think there a good "random article" button for the entire internet.
—C.W.
doc wrote:
So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit?
I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.
On average, I'd say it isn't the best system we've got, and that Wikipedia is a better system. That is, if we're discussing the fairly narrow issue of basic coverage of primary-level history, not detailed coverage of specialist topics. The basic Wikipedia coverage of the subject matter in a typical high-school history textbook is, as far as I can tell, generally better than the coverage in the textbooks themselves. This varies by area, and there are perhaps some jurisdictions that use very good textbooks, but I'd say on average the textbooks are worse. If you include the textbooks of non-western countries, the textbooks are so much worse as to not even be a fair comparison.
Of course, I don't get most of my specialist, higher-level knowledge from Wikipedia in my field of research; I'll trust a book or survey article by a well-known specialist in the field first. But if I just want an overview of the US participation in World War II, you can bet I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Texas Board of Education's approved version; and if I want an article on the Thai monarchy, I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Thai government's approved version.
-Mark
Durova wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
"Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder."
Anyone who feels the need to plagiarize in this way probably lacks the foresight needed to implement the technique. The need and the foresight are mutually exclusive. :-)
Ec
Sam Korn wrote:
Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject (and supremely history).
Possibly more broadly. I was looking around for references to a rather 'retro' teaching method for history, and found this:
"The significance of ephemera for the teaching of history in schools has already been demonstrated. In particular, Longman’s ‘Jackdaw’ series from the 1960s, and more recently the ephemera collections sold by the Public Record Office, have shown how effective reproductions of ephemeral documents of the past can be as part of a teaching pack. The educational potential of ephemera at all stages of education has increased beyond measure in recent years with the widespread availability of electronic methods of delivering images."
From
http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0CE6922C-0DF2-4A70-ACED-B40005A115A4/0/..., at p. 11.
I'm old enough to remember the 'Jackdaws', which were folders of reproduction period documents and other things: primary sources in a wallet. The point made here is quite correct, though closer to using the Commons and Wikisource perhaps: it could become essentially trivial to produce the raw material for such a thing now, and to rehabilitate 'project work'. This would fit quite well with also asking students to go and critique pieces of historical writing in the suggested style. Of course curricula aren't exactly designed for this stuff, as of right now, in the UK. (Hmmm, 40 years since I was last subjected to formal history teaching: "the Hanoverians" ... wonder if it would have helped.)
Charles