Comments on: Wikireader or Wikicreator http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator Jeff Utecht - Bangkok, Thailand Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:47:21 +0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mr. Chase http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator/comment-page-1#comment-21603 Mr. Chase Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:51:26 +0000 http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=461#comment-21603 I think my comment just bounced back, so I'll try and abbreviated version. I agree with your post. Many members of our small faculty are unaware of the majority of Web 2.0 tools and how they can be used in the classroom. When showing Wikipedia to a colleague for the first time, the inevitable discussion of "So how does this get put together?" meets with some disbelief. After a while, though, they are seeing how it can be used as a tool and admitting that no tool is perfect. If teachers are telling their students not to use Wikipedia because it is fallible, I worry they are also sending even an implied message that there are resources out there that are infallible. I would edit this sentence of your post, "If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to write the text rather than read the text..." to "If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to read AND write the text rather than simply read the text..." It is a source, so long as we are educating students on how to filter all content. I think my comment just bounced back, so I’ll try and abbreviated version.
I agree with your post. Many members of our small faculty are unaware of the majority of Web 2.0 tools and how they can be used in the classroom.
When showing Wikipedia to a colleague for the first time, the inevitable discussion of “So how does this get put together?” meets with some disbelief. After a while, though, they are seeing how it can be used as a tool and admitting that no tool is perfect.
If teachers are telling their students not to use Wikipedia because it is fallible, I worry they are also sending even an implied message that there are resources out there that are infallible.
I would edit this sentence of your post, “If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to write the text rather than read the text…” to “If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to read AND write the text rather than simply read the text…”
It is a source, so long as we are educating students on how to filter all content.

]]> By: Mr. Chase http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator/comment-page-1#comment-21601 Mr. Chase Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:43:52 +0000 http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=461#comment-21601 Jeff, I fall along the same lines with my opinion. My school has a faculty of 12 and many of them are just coming online when it comes to web 2.0 tools. While the learning curve is steep at times, it is also helpful because they approach each tool with an open mind. I point them to wikipedia and then point out it's possible flaws. We discuss that using the site with students requires serious and important discussions about learning as a filtering process. This is true of any resource - your mention of Pluto proves that nicely. I would change this sentence, "If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to write the text rather than read the text..." to "If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to read AND write the text rather than simply read the text..." Wikipedia is reliable as a source. Like all other sources, it is not 100% reliable. Thanks for making me think. Jeff,
I fall along the same lines with my opinion. My school has a faculty of 12 and many of them are just coming online when it comes to web 2.0 tools.
While the learning curve is steep at times, it is also helpful because they approach each tool with an open mind. I point them to wikipedia and then point out it’s possible flaws. We discuss that using the site with students requires serious and important discussions about learning as a filtering process. This is true of any resource – your mention of Pluto proves that nicely.
I would change this sentence, “If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to write the text rather than read the text…” to “If you view Wikipedia and Wikibooks as a place to read AND write the text rather than simply read the text…”
Wikipedia is reliable as a source. Like all other sources, it is not 100% reliable.
Thanks for making me think.

]]> By: Katrina http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator/comment-page-1#comment-21592 Katrina Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:58:37 +0000 http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=461#comment-21592 As an English teacher, I encourage my students to use sources other than wikipedia for research, yet it's a source that I use every day as a tool for my professional and personal "information gathering." My students use it, I use it, so why the big fuss? In all our class blogs, I use wikipedia as a link in the sidebar. When the Pluto news came out, I, like Dennis, <a href="http://lovetowrite.typepad.com/geeks/2006/08/gotta_love_thos.html" rel="nofollow">posted</a> on the subject of Pluto and wikis, with links to the thought-provoking NY Times article about Pluto and wikipedia. The greater questions might be: why are educators so resistant to a demoncratic form of a informational portal? Could it be related to the "old skool" concept of information being "static" rather than "evolving"? As an English teacher, I encourage my students to use sources other than wikipedia for research, yet it’s a source that I use every day as a tool for my professional and personal “information gathering.” My students use it, I use it, so why the big fuss? In all our class blogs, I use wikipedia as a link in the sidebar.

When the Pluto news came out, I, like Dennis, posted on the subject of Pluto and wikis, with links to the thought-provoking NY Times article about Pluto and wikipedia.

The greater questions might be: why are educators so resistant to a demoncratic form of a informational portal? Could it be related to the “old skool” concept of information being “static” rather than “evolving”?

]]> By: Thinking Allowed. » Blog Archive » Wikipedia is a learning tool http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator/comment-page-1#comment-21591 Thinking Allowed. » Blog Archive » Wikipedia is a learning tool Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:35:37 +0000 http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=461#comment-21591 [...] post on wikipedia from Jeff at Thinking Stick after his presentation on wikis at the ETC conference in [...] [...] post on wikipedia from Jeff at Thinking Stick after his presentation on wikis at the ETC conference in [...]

]]> By: Dennis Harter http://www.thethinkingstick.com/wikireader-or-wikicreator/comment-page-1#comment-21587 Dennis Harter Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:57:08 +0000 http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=461#comment-21587 I agree completely! I love your point about it not being a site for research, but a site waiting to be edited. I was having a very similar conversation with teachers yesterday in the lobby. Teachers continue to focus on the "anyone can post information" side of things and ignore the "it's what kids (and us) are using" side. I <a href="http://dharter.edublogs.org/2007/03/20/the-resilient-power-of-common-sense-wikipedia-in-the-economist/" rel="nofollow">posted </a> on this very thought a few weeks back when the Economist posted an article Wikipedia. At the macro level Wikipedia is a phenomenal source for accuracy. At the micro level (per article), you can't be sure, but that forces the conversation with students about why that is...about info-accuracy...and about validating your information from other sources. You are so right...from home, we all use wikipedia. It comes up first most of the time in Google and it's a great source. So why can't it also be the first stop for research? Most posts even provide external links. I have been listening to Ian Jukes all weekend (I'm a little Juked-out, now) confirm that what kids need to know isn't content, but rather the skills to be successful in a world we can't imagine. Yet we still see teachers resistant to beginning those conversations with kids. On a side note, because I've Juked so much, I have not made it to one of your sessions yet. I have kid duty today, but perhaps will meet you tonight at the reception. I agree completely! I love your point about it not being a site for research, but a site waiting to be edited.

I was having a very similar conversation with teachers yesterday in the lobby. Teachers continue to focus on the “anyone can post information” side of things and ignore the “it’s what kids (and us) are using” side.

I posted on this very thought a few weeks back when the Economist posted an article Wikipedia.

At the macro level Wikipedia is a phenomenal source for accuracy. At the micro level (per article), you can’t be sure, but that forces the conversation with students about why that is…about info-accuracy…and about validating your information from other sources.

You are so right…from home, we all use wikipedia. It comes up first most of the time in Google and it’s a great source. So why can’t it also be the first stop for research? Most posts even provide external links.

I have been listening to Ian Jukes all weekend (I’m a little Juked-out, now) confirm that what kids need to know isn’t content, but rather the skills to be successful in a world we can’t imagine. Yet we still see teachers resistant to beginning those conversations with kids.

On a side note, because I’ve Juked so much, I have not made it to one of your sessions yet. I have kid duty today, but perhaps will meet you tonight at the reception.

]]>