Jan's points below are well taken. In the thick of some scientific debate, where the veracity of various positions is being called into question, it's generally not considered appropriate to cite an encyclopedia, even Britannica. Encyclopedias are secondary sources, and when a point needs strong support, one needs to locate a primary source.
Encyclopedia citations in the case of blog postings, electronic memos, correspondence, may helpfully go to Wikipedia when simply defining terms or mentioning an historical event in passing. I'll link to Math World, Urban Dictionary, Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences in this way. These aren't student papers justifying a debating position. These are orienting cues or clues, hoping to keep my reader up to speed enough to not disconnect entirely, because I'm using too many undefined terms. Or if I am taking a controversial position,* then I need to do better than just cite an encyclopedia* (any encyclopedia). However, even when decoding shop talk or jargon, one may encounter entries with problems e.g. this entry regarding UML<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Paradigm_for_UML>(unified modeling language) is currently flagged as "written like an advertisement" -- another kind of spam editors of an open wiki-based encyclopedia need to contend with. Regarding Wikieducator, there's little to stop someone at the top of their game, one of the leading authorities in some field, from making some Wikieducator page a window into her or his thinking. Imagine if Linus Pauling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_pauling> had chosen Wikieducator as a place to share views, not only about chemistry (for which he had a Nobel prize), but also about nuclear disarmament (he had a Nobel Peace Prize as well, took many controversial opinions at the height of the McCarthy period <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism> and subsequently). Regarding Wikipedia, there's a specific policy that articles should contain no original research<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>. I don't see WikiEducator has having such a policy, e.g. here's a Wikieducator page<http://wikieducator.org/Otago_Polytechnic/Measuring_our_open_education>giving the results of some specific field study. This is nothing like an encyclopedia entry in Wikipedia. On a different topic, I was wondering how in WikiEducator one might embed an iFrame such as are used in Google Street Views<http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-street-view.html>. I did some searches but so far have not found any examples. *Kirby Urner <http://wikieducator.org/User:KirbyUrner>* On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jan Visser <[email protected]> wrote: > "Also, the color scheme and design of the website is exactly the same as > Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is known for false information, and cannot be used > for research papers. I feel that this site is similar to Wikipedia; > therefore, this site's information cannot be trusted." > > > > There are two reasons why you can't use Wikipedia as a source for citation > in arguments where scientific validation is a serious concern: (1) the > source is not stable. What is there one day may no longer ne there the next > day. (2) The authorship is anonymous and articles have not been peer > reviewed. So, whatever claims appear in the citation can't be traced back to > a particular individual or institutional environment with a recognizable > history of validly contributing to scientific knowledge building. > > > > It doesn't mean, though, that what you read in the Wikipedia is worthless > or that students should be discouraged from using it in their explorations. > Quite to the contrary, in my view. In many areas, Wikipedia is an excellent > resource. Students can often use it as a good starting point for their > research because it's free, but they will have to move beyond it to check > what they read against sources that meet the criteria for citation mentioned > above. Many good entries in the Wikipedia are linked to or cite such > quotable sources, which should make it easy for students to do such further > research. > > > > As WikiEducator's mission is in the first place to provide curriculum > materials, it's unlikely that it will want to become a quotable resource, > for the same reason that printed curriculum materials developed for schools > are unlikely to end up among the referenced works cited in scientific > papers, unless the paper is in the area of the sciences of learning. > > > > The student is wrong if s/he thinks that you cannot trust the information > in Wikipedia simply because it is Wikipedia and that, if it is in one of > those other sources, it can be automatically trusted. Anything written will > always have to be subject to the critical scrutiny of those who care to > read. S/he is right in expressing distrust in a source that has earlier been > found to be weak in validity control. > > > > In my view, the student's remark points once again to the important > opportunity for WikiEducator to develop materials and processes that lead > students to becoming critically constructive users and producers of the > growing wealth of knowledge available in a distributed fashion via different > channels, one of them being the Internet. > > > > Jan > > > > -- > > Jan Visser, Ph.D. > > President & Sr. Researcher, Learning Development Institute > > E-mail: [email protected] > > Check out: http://www.learndev.org and http://www.facebook.com/learndev > > Blog: http://jvisser-ldi.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "WikiEducator" group. > To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org > To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
