On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:30 PM, valerie <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Kirby > > Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I have several class assignments > looking at Wikipedia page histories and discussions so students > understand the process and the power of a collaboratively written > resource work like Wikipedia. That works great. > > Hi Valerie --
This sounds like an intelligent and enlightened approach. I have struggled with the Wikipedia ecosystem myself. I've put a lot of work into an esoteric philosophical work called 'Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking' and yet for some years, entering 'Synergetics' in Wikipedia took one to a page primarily about the work of another author, using a similar title. Disambiguation we needed. Once someone (not me) started a new page on RB Fuller's 'Synergetics', there followed additional discussions. I can't say I'm hugely happy with that new page as it stands. In the External Links section, you'll see my link to WikiEducator, where I give a more personal and not-like-an-encyclopedia posting about Synergetics (given this is WikiEducator, not Wikipedia, I have no worries about my use of the first person, am behaving more like a primary source than a secondary one). > WE are always eager to expand our WikiEducator user community. While > it is going well, it could be better. This comment from a student was > simply the latest reminder that there are faculty who are actively > campaigning against wikis and web-based learning objects. I am > frustrated by faculty and their lack of curiosity and professional > growth, that after all this time they are still short-changing their > students with their anti-Wikipedia beliefs. > > I respect and understand your frustration. Teachers have different motivations. Feel free to clarify what you think these might be. In some cases, people are simply overwhelmed by the Internet in general and push back against learning new skills, because they resent what they regard as an imposition by others. Future shock is a painful experience sometimes. You wake up one morning and it seems like everyone but you is a Wikieducator. At first you panic, then you maybe find some peers who share your "skepticism" and fight back in some ways. In my world, there are many political nuances. For example, one may have had a bruising experience with Wikipedia, say by having one's page deleted by Wikipedia authorities, and so be very down on Wikipedia in particular. And yet this same person might in general endorse and appreciate the Wiki concept. Many companies use wikis internally for documentation and so forth. Not all wikis are "open". Maybe only two or three people have access rights on a given page. My point is simply that we have many criss-crossing ideas / concepts, relating to openness, collaboration, different uses of the same tool across multiple contexts. "Love wikis, hate Wikipedia" is a possible viewpoint in this mix. Anthony Judge (UIA), who has a Wikipedia entry, has stirred up some discussion of the Wikipedia ecosystem, e.g. here: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/anthony-judge-the-wikipedia-needs-a-process-for-counterclaims/2008/01/08 > If faculty won't accept Wikipedia as a resource, it will be a very > hard sell to get them to author or adopt learning objects in > WikiEducator. While that is their loss, their students are missing out > as well. > > Yes. My initial response was an attempt to disconnect the technology (the wiki) from issues of reliability, verifiability, and the purpose of an encyclopedia in culture more generally. Wikipedia has a conscious policy of trying to be an encyclopedia in the sense of not being a source of original research or speculation. It's not a magazine or warehouse for science fiction. It's not a place for new cults to establish themselves. It's not a place advertise goods and services. And so forth. And yet a wiki, in and of itself, may be pressed into all of these services, and many more. > Thanks for listening. > > ..Valerie > > I hope I don't give the impression that I'm lecturing and pontificating to people I consider uninformed or in need of my vast learning. On the contrary, I am relatively new to Wikieducator and have a lot less experience with learning objects, or wikis in general, than probably you do, or most people on this list. I'm just thinking out loud and hoping to clarify my own thinking in a semi-public venue. I would urge compassion for those who feel overwhelmed by the pace of technological change. Future shock is a real phenomenon. It's also sometimes smart to set up obstacle courses, raise objections, even where one thinks the technology might well be appropriate but still one needs to be sure. We need to test, verify, not simply accept on faith that every tool is as apropos as its champions advertise. Detractors perform a social service sometimes, in registering their skepticism. It's one thing to challenge, another to stand in the way. When I encounter a resistent attitude, sometimes my question is: is this person really a gatekeeper? Sometimes a lot of frustration arises from thinking so-and-so needs to agree or cooperate. Last night I attended a talk about how micro-hydro installations are bringing the Internet to the mountain tribes of Borneo. Thanks to some of these experiments, kids are less likely to leave the village, while still getting an education. "Place based education" is ever more possible in some contexts. A local wiki might provide the local map of the village and its surroundings. When it comes to resisting timber company efforts to simply grab land, having these maps is a big help. These maps are "learning objects" of a vital nature. The talk (led by a member of one of these tribes) included showing off Google Earth. Even though we were a room full of mostly older technologically savvy people, I could tell that Google Earth was new to some of us. Our presenter from Borneo was likewise an engineer, in his 30s, and ahead of a lot of us, in terms of skills and mastery over contemporary technology. Back to Fuller's 'Synergetics', I'm always encountering skepticism as to its relevance and importance to contemporary intellectual history, and that's OK with me, is what I have to work with. I also get to work with Google Sketchup and WikiEducator, so why should I complain? http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=a4295f6b93a3e11488961f28097fe890&prevstart=0 (dome tent) http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=41da9dccf088fd4d3bbc5c9f885136bc&prevstart=0 (octet truss building a buckyball) http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=56d2fcc950f147aaeac8dd3fda239aee&prevstart=0 (Fuller Projection) In that sense, I'm quite open to people sharing about their possibly negative experiences with this or that technology. If you've had a bad experience with Wikipedia or some other wiki, there should be a forum or group where it's OK to share it, and without automatically being stigmatized as "anti progress" or "a poor teacher" or some such label. I expect readers here agree, so again please don't take this as a lecture. Kirby > > On Jan 18, 6:49 pm, kirby urner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:50 PM, valerie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -- > 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]
