I use Wikipedia for lots of research for my own consumptions. Some of them even related to medical information. I am even planning to give donation to show my appreciation of the work done by so many excellent volunteers. There are many excellent, high quality materials, but there are also the question of 'equal' quality on all the materials found on Wikipedia.
Therefore I can see the point why Middlebury College is banning the use of it. I personally would Wikipedia anytime for background research and reference, but I do not think I should cite Wikipedia as source. In my case is because I do not know who is the author therefore I cannot research on the validity of the authors. Perhaps some would argue that an article from The Economist would not necessary have the name of the author either. But then The Economist would stand behind what she published. I am not sure Wikipedia would officially/legally able to do that. Cindy [EMAIL PROTECTED] "David P. Dillard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Me again. I do not think a group of faculty members at various institutions changes the equation much. There is a growing group of professional educators who recognize and support value in the Wikipedia. A recent poster to EDTECH, an H-Net discussion group, who is a library science faculty member indicated in a post that she is beginning to have major second thoughts about prior negative attitudes toward the Wikipedia. I suspect many reference librarians in academic and public libraries see the good and try to teach students in reference encounters to use their thinking and analyzing skills to find and deal with any bad in the Wikipedia. EDTECH There are 173 posts that mention Wikipedia on EDTECH and these are quite interesting and overall more positive in overall trend than what one might find in discussion of this source on a medieval history scholars list or a discussion group of philosophy professors. Those who engage in rigorous scholarship will be very likely to miss the values of a tool like the Wikipedia and not realize as well some of the powerful uses of Google, Ask.com, Yahoo and so forth. But this will be counterbalanced by many in K-12 fields, as well as those in colleges who teach curriculums like business or journalism or even fields like sociology or medicine who see some important positive sides of this resource. I do apologize for the last segment of my first post as I was trying to finish rapidly as I needed to be at a meeting and I did not communicate in that last sentence. My point was that Google and the Wikipedia have been heavily covered as a source for information in lots of Net-Gold posts and as a topic of discussion in many Net-Gold posts. The Wikipedia will remain a controversial tool, but many will recognize its values and use it and this includes some of those folks in academic circles. Here is the quote of the library and information science professor that I alluded to above in this post. "4. Finally, have you changed your mind about some tech in the last year. For example, I used to be 100% leery of Wikipedia, but now see its pluses. I am interested in things that have just lately caught your eye. They do nothave to be brand new, but new to you. They can be useful, entertaining, or of course both! Only a few things come to my tired brain right now.... I have definitely changed my tune about wikipedia. I still teach kids to be more than a little sceptical - but you absolutely can't beat it as a place to start researching new trends/issues/people etc." From: Mary Ann Bell List Editor: EDTECH Editor-Jones Editor's Subject: HIT: New devices, apps, sites (second of two) Author's Subject: HIT: New devices, apps, sites (second of two) Date Written: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:31:47 -0500 ********************************************* "Try curiosity!"--Dorothy Parker ********************************************* Dr. Mary Ann Bell Associate Professor, Library Science Sam Houston State University Huntsville, TX [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] month=0701&week=b&msg=2rqkHtOkpvr8SXYUnBSC4g&user=&pw=> A shorter URL for the above link: Sincerely, David Dillard Temple University (215) 204 - 4584 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Net-Gold General Internet & Print Resources Digital Divide Network Educator-Gold ---------------------------- On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Kinyua Martin wrote: > This is a blow to a wonderful resource. Professors should probably take > a greater role in reviewing the material on Wikipedia. With time the > resource will become more and more accurate as opposed to discouraging > its use altogether. > Martin Kinyua > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: David P. Dillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:55 PM > To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group > Subject: [DDN] A Stand Against Wikipedia > REFERENCE: ENCYCLOPEDIAS : > REFERENCE: TOOLS: ELECTRONIC ONLINE AND INTERNET: > A Stand Against Wikipedia > A Stand Against Wikipedia > Inside Higher Ed > January 26, 2007 > > As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some > professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, > reader-produced encyclopedia. > While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or > completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar > students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is > trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar > students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other > academic > work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and > explaining why material on Wikipedia while convenient may not be > trustworthy. > "As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of > misinformation, said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. Even though > Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading > students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for > citation, he said. > The department made what Wyatt termed a consensus decision on the issue > after discussing problems professors were seeing as students cited > incorrect information from Wikipedia in papers and on tests. > ---------------------------------------- > The complete article may be read at the URL above. > Additional use and coverage of the Wikipedia may be found at this URL: > > wikipedia+and+%22net-gold%22&qt_s=Search+Groups> > A shorter URL for the above link: > > Sincerely, > David Dillard > Temple University > (215) 204 - 4584 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Net-Gold > > > General Internet & Print Resources > > > > Digital Divide Network > > Educator-Gold > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. ============= [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
