In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
> Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an
> arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture
> in
> Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, "this is our encyclopedia, and no
> 'expert' is going to tell us what to do", may seem liberating to some, but
> is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has
> the
> potential to be. >>
It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but
rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses. That was the
intent. In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse.
It's not the point that "no expert is going to tell us what to do". It's
the point that some "experts" not all or them, nor even most of them, do not
want to be challenged on their own dogma or as slim put it their canon.
They don't want students who are too uppity, but prefer to lecture down from
the position to which they think they are entitled.
In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but
rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give
an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well.
Or at least that's the theory. If a student asks "Why" and you respond
"Because I said so", exactly what sort of "Expert" are you? Not a very good
one is my response.
W