1 / 23

Why Wikipedia in the English 102/104 Classroom?

Why Wikipedia in the English 102/104 Classroom?. 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References. References.

thalia
Download Presentation

Why Wikipedia in the English 102/104 Classroom?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why Wikipedia in the English 102/104 Classroom? 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  2. What is Wikipedia? • Almost all of us know what Wikipedia is, and many of us use it. Did you know that Wikipedia: • Receives 684 million visitors annually • Holds 10,000,000 articles in 250 languages • Is ranked among the 20 most popular websites in the world1 • Is edited about 16 times a minute in the English version • Word derives from Hawaiian “wikiwiki” meaning “quick” and “informal”2 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Black 76 2 Rosenzweig 120

  3. Wiki Hazards Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous? a) Uncertain reliability & verifiability b) Weakening power/perception of the value of the expert c) Democratization of information—truth can’t be a popularity contest d) Concern regarding students’ ability to evaluate sources e) Concern regarding students’ ability to find academic sources 1 What is Wikipedia? 2Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  4. Wiki Hazards Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous? a) Uncertain reliability & verifiability “Wikipedia poses as an encyclopædia when by no stretch of the definition can it be termed such”1 1 What is Wikipedia? 2Wiki Hazards a. Reliability 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Gorman

  5. Wiki Hazards Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous? b) Weakening power/perception of the value of the expert: “Wikipedia exhibits anti-intellectualism and actively deters people with expertise from contributing. For example, experts rarely receive any deference from other contributors to Wikipedia as a result of their expertise […] Since they cannot simply appeal to their authority, experts have to fight it out just like anyone else to get their views to stick in the encyclopedia.”1 1 What is Wikipedia? 2Wiki Hazards b. Expert 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Fallis 1665

  6. Wiki Hazards Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous? c) Democratization of information—truth can’t be a popularity contest “[A]ll too often, democratization of access to information is equated with the democratization of the information itself, in the sense that it is subject to a vote. That last mental conflation may have origins that predate Wikipedia and indeed the whole of the Internet”1 “[M]ost of us believe in a real, external world in which facts exist independently of popular opinion, and some interpretations of events, thoroughly grounded in disciplinary rigor and the weight of evidence, are at least more likely to be right than others that are not.” 2 1 What is Wikipedia? 2Wiki Hazards c. Democratization 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Waters 16 2 Waters 16

  7. Wiki Hazards Why does Wikipedia make scholars & educators nervous? d) Concern regarding students’ ability to evaluate sources e) Concern regarding students’ ability to find academic sources “A 2003 Wellesley College study […] found that 63 percent of students asked to list Microsoft's top innovations used only the company's Web site as a source. On a straightforward reference question, 78 percent of students failed to verify their answers with a second source.”1 Such studies suggest that today’s students need training in evaluating the legitimacy and relevancy of information available online. 1 What is Wikipedia? 2Wiki Hazards d. Evaluating Sources e. Finding Sources 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Achterman 39

  8. Wiki Potentials • But are all of the accusations against Wikipedia true? • Multiple recent studies have suggested that Wikipedia articles are both reliable and valid1 • And, according to UA Professor of Library & Information Science Don Fallis, “in many respects, Wikipedia is actually more verifiable than most other information sources.” 2 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 See Wilkinson and Huberman, 2007; Black, 2007; Giles, 2005; Anthony et al., 2005 2 Fallis 1668

  9. Why Wikipedia? • Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: • Knowledge is produced, contestable, and contested • Evidence for “facts” varies depending on context, situation, and stakes of reporter/researcher • The distinction between academic writing and non-academic writing • How to evaluate & value information 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  10. Why Wikipedia? Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: 1. Knowledge is produced, contestable/contested See the Wikipedia “Spanish Inquisition” Discussion Page: “Oh, and by the way, interesting that the authors think burning humans alive at the stake […] does not qualify as "torture as punishment". Historical revisionismin action.” 1 “Look, in a section on historiography, it is not only appropriate, but important, to set out the arguments of previous historians. You continually want to remove them as "discredited". True, there have been revisions, but Lea is still considered fundamental to Inquisition historiography.”1 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 “Spanish Inquisition” Disucssion. Wikipedia.com

  11. Why Wikipedia? Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: 2. Evidence for “facts” varies depending on context, situation, and stakes of reporter/researcher See the “Abortion” Discussion Page: “The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the pro-choice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the fetus.”2 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 “Spanish Inquisition” Disucssion. Wikipedia.com 2 “Abortion” Discussion. Wikipedia.com

  12. Why Wikipedia? • Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: • 3. The distinction between academic writing and non-academic writing • Wikipedia exists by three major editorial policies—published information must be reliable, it must be verifiable, and it must not promote “original research.” • On the other hand, academic writing necessarily requires original research building upon peer-reviewed sources. • Drawing attention to this distinction (and others) between discourse communities will provoke a strong awareness of research methodology 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  13. Why Wikipedia? Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: 4. How to evaluate & value information While the World Wide Web has consolidated a vast amount of accessible knowledge, it does not automatically teach users how to determine if that knowledge is worthwhile. "The typical freshman assumes that she is already an expert user of the Internet, and her daily experience leads her to believe that she can get what she wants online without having to undergo a training program.”1 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Wilder B13

  14. Why Wikipedia? Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: 4. How to evaluate & value information We ought to teach our students not only how to produce scholarship, but also why research works the way it does. For example, Why do we cite our sources? What is the purpose of writing for a peer-reviewed journal? Why are these sources “more reliable” than other sources? 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  15. Why Wikipedia? Analyzing, researching for, and contributing to Wikipedia gives students a hands-on way to learn: 4. How to evaluate & value information This question of “worth” is at the heart of the debate over scholarly and non-scholarly sources—how do we value information in the university? Who gets to decide what is valuable? These issues are powerfully rhetorical in nature—every evaluation of research must confront questions of “by whom,” “for whom,” “how,” and “why.” 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  16. Disclaimer • What I’m NOT trying to teach with Wikipedia: • That Wikipedia is an academic source • That Wikipedia is/should be considered the first and last reliable source for research 1 • That Wikipedia is a faultless repository of knowledge • To dismiss the threatening quality that Wikipedia can have for scholars 2 • To dismiss the possibility of misinformation (consider Stephen Colbert’s campaign to “save” the elephants by changing their population rates on Wikipedia) • That we can dismiss the potential for plagiarism 3 • This is all true of Wikipedia, but I believe that a focused analysis of the encyclopedia at the start of the semester will allow students to understand its dangers as well as its benefits. 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Waters 15 2 Fallis 1665 3 Waters 17

  17. Wikipedia & English 102 In many ways, my course mirrors the standard 102 curriculum: Like in 102, my students will write: 1. A series of focused rhetorical analyses 2. An academic-style research essay 3. Translation of that essay into a “public” space (Wikipedia) Just as the controversy essay asks students to balance conflicting viewpoints, becoming a contributor for Wikipedia requires a writerly stance dubbed the “neutral point of view” (NPOV).1 This concept of neutrality seeks to represent minority reports only in proportion to their prevalence in the sphere of public knowledge about the subject. Therefore, writing for Wikipedia instructs students in analyzing a source’s credibility and its stake in a controversial issue. 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 “NPOV” Wikipedia.com

  18. Even Better… • In addition, I think that using Wikipedia will enrich the 102 curriculum in a variety of ways: • Applied comparison of scholarly research versus writing for a general audience • Heightened awareness of what it means to produce & reproduce knowledge • Awareness of the power relations involved in knowledge production and consumption • Stronger understanding of why and how a source is scholarly, reliable, neutral, and verifiable • Extreme publicity, leading to higher-stakes writing • Attention to conventions and standards of writing in a variety of contexts (not just MLA) 1What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  19. Public Argument • How does using Wikipedia raise questions of public argument? • Each article includes a “Discussion,” an “History,” tab, and an “Edit this Page” section.1 • The “Edit” tab is clear—any user can click in and edit any part of the article. • Editors justify any major changes they’ve made to the article in the “Discussion” section. Here, users locate errors, breaches of the NPOV policy, and other problems needing correction. • Through these tabs, users engage in public arguments about knowledge—the very thing that we as scholars do in our academic journals. 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Wikipedia.com

  20. Public Argument • How does using Wikipedia raise questions of public argument? • As they publish their pages to Wikipedia, students will write with an awareness that their words will be hereafter up for debate, revision, editing, and rewriting. This materializes the fact that their writing is an argument, even if it seems to only tell “the facts.” • The benefits of writing for a real audience include: • Higher stakes writing—someone besides the teacher reads their work • A stronger sense of purpose • The weight of ownership (though the anonymity inherent to Wikipedia might alleviate this weight to an extent) 1 What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  21. Other Public Forums If you’re not crazy about using Wikipedia but wish to incorporate digital writing in your class, consider these sites: Citizendium.com: A project recently developed by one of Wikipedia’s original agents, Citizendium seeks articles written by “experts,” or people with verifiable authority in the area about which they write. Citizendium writers include some professors. Blogs—Blogger.com, academic blogs, etc Other types of Wiki programs Secondlife (available through UA) 1What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

  22. Digital Literacy Furthermore, we expand our students’ literacy practices using new media writing. “Literacy is always ideological, tied to what counts as a culture’s favored communication modes or technologies and to bound by and reproductive of larger cultural practices”1 “Students need to learn the ‘distanced’ process of how to critique the saturated visual and technological landscape that surrounds them as something structured and written in a set of deliberate rhetorical moves. They then need to enact those visual moves on their own.”2 “Such a pedagogy necessarily involves students not only consuming and analyzing a wide range of texts, but also producing; as Buckingam argues (2004), ‘to become an active participant in public life necessarily involves making use of the modern media’ and engagement in multimodal production provides a ‘basis for more democratic and inclusive forms of media production in the future.’”3 1What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References 1 Wysocki 601 2 Hocks 645 3 Wysocki 604

  23. References Black, Erik. “Wikipedia and Academic Peer Review: Wikipedia as a Recognised Medium?”Online Information Review 32.1 (2008): 73-88. Fallis, Don. “Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59.10 (2008): 1662-1674. Gorman, G.E. “A Tale of Information Ethics and Encyclopedias; or, is Wikipedia Just Another Internet Scam?” Online Information Review 31.3 (2007): 273-6. Hocks, Mary. “Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments.” College Composition and Communication 54.4 (Jun. 2003): 629-56. Rosenzweig, Roy. “Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past.” The Journal of American History (June 2006): 117-146. Wallace “The Democratization of Information?” Reference and User Services Quarterly 45.2 (Winter 2005): 100-103. Waters, Neil. “Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class” ACM 50.9 (Sept. 2007): 15-17. Wikipedia. <http://www.wikipedia.org> 1 December 2008. Wilder, Stanley. “Information Literacy Makes All the Wrong Assumptions.” Chronicle of Higher Education 51.18 (Jan. 2005): B13. Wysocki, Anne. “Seeing the Screen: Research into Visual and Digital Writing Practices.” Bazerman, Charles, Ed. Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008. 599-611. 1What is Wikipedia? 2 Wiki Hazards 3 Wiki Potentials 4 Why Wikipedia? 5 Disclaimer 6 Wikipedia & English 102 7 Even Better… 8 Public Argument 9 Other Public Forums 10 Digital Literacy 11 References References

More Related