Comments on: Two from Seth Godin http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html Technology, leadership, and the future of schools Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joel http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html/comment-page-1#comment-13947 Joel Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000 http://annahein.com/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html#comment-13947 The Wikipedia Gap post is, in my opinion, missing the mark by a longshot. I understand what Seth is saying about schools and teachers banning the use of Wikipedia, but the generalizations are too sweeping for me to follow his path of reasoning. While I too appreciate knowledgeable doctors who are quick thinkers, I'd stop going to any doctor who devised a treatment plan for my life-threatening illness from a Wikipedia entry. I would certainly hope that my doctor would hit the medical journals. However, if s/he were quickly looking up information that did not require a high degree of analysis and scrutiny, such as reading about various symptoms, I would think Wikipedia a good source. The point is that there are never absolutes in informational literacy (maybe that is the ONE absolute). One needs to use a variety of tools that are appropriate to the task and quite frankly, sometimes Wikipedia is not the appropriate tool. Students, especially younger ones, are developmentally unready to process the concepts of evaluating resources for validity. Seth states that Wikipedia being good enough to quickly take a bunch of facts and turn them into a new and useful idea. That is a great human ability, but has nothing to do with any one particular information source. So saying it is good enough is too sweeping of a generalization. It is good enough for those that understand how and when it ought to be used, and when it should be looked at with some skepticism. When one of our high school's Wikipedia entries incorrectly lists former principals, I would consider it not good enough fact finding into the history of our school. I think it is completely appropriate for teachers to help students understand that selecting informational sources is a critical thinking skill and if that means that sometimes they are steered towards sources other than Wikipedia, it might happen with good reason. Of course, if we live in a world of absolutes, I would not agree with the statement that Wikipedia should never be used, but nor would I say it should always be consulted. The Wikipedia Gap post is, in my opinion, missing the mark by a longshot. I understand what Seth is saying about schools and teachers banning the use of Wikipedia, but the generalizations are too sweeping for me to follow his path of reasoning.

While I too appreciate knowledgeable doctors who are quick thinkers, I’d stop going to any doctor who devised a treatment plan for my life-threatening illness from a Wikipedia entry. I would certainly hope that my doctor would hit the medical journals. However, if s/he were quickly looking up information that did not require a high degree of analysis and scrutiny, such as reading about various symptoms, I would think Wikipedia a good source.

The point is that there are never absolutes in informational literacy (maybe that is the ONE absolute). One needs to use a variety of tools that are appropriate to the task and quite frankly, sometimes Wikipedia is not the appropriate tool.

Students, especially younger ones, are developmentally unready to process the concepts of evaluating resources for validity.

Seth states that Wikipedia being good enough to quickly take a bunch of facts and turn them into a new and useful idea. That is a great human ability, but has nothing to do with any one particular information source. So saying it is good enough is too sweeping of a generalization. It is good enough for those that understand how and when it ought to be used, and when it should be looked at with some skepticism. When one of our high school’s Wikipedia entries incorrectly lists former principals, I would consider it not good enough fact finding into the history of our school.

I think it is completely appropriate for teachers to help students understand that selecting informational sources is a critical thinking skill and if that means that sometimes they are steered towards sources other than Wikipedia, it might happen with good reason. Of course, if we live in a world of absolutes, I would not agree with the statement that Wikipedia should never be used, but nor would I say it should always be consulted.

]]> By: Brian B. http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html/comment-page-1#comment-13948 Brian B. Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000 http://annahein.com/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html#comment-13948 I think that Seth utilizes the often degraded information source, Wikipedia, to make a valid point. We are relying too often on information located in textbooks that were written several years prior and we do not focus enough on the methodology of research. We need to be teaching our students how to find information, validate it, and turn it around to make it mean something. I think that Seth utilizes the often degraded information source, Wikipedia, to make a valid point. We are relying too often on information located in textbooks that were written several years prior and we do not focus enough on the methodology of research. We need to be teaching our students how to find information, validate it, and turn it around to make it mean something.

]]> By: Calliope http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html/comment-page-1#comment-13949 Calliope Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000 http://annahein.com/2007/10/two-from-seth-g.html#comment-13949 Well, I can't disagree with Seth on his blog directly, so I'll have to do it here. Wikipedia does address his primary complaint about research--it serves as an excellent compendium of sources and primary references to get the researcher started. But you can't trust a reference document that can be manipulated by Stephen Colbert. (Not that I don't love Colbert... but I wouldn't go to him for my history paper). The point of old-fashioned research is not to display your ability to find source material. It's to ensure that your synthesis of said material is based on *reliable* information. I love Wikipedia as much as the next writer but it's simply too easy for anyone to change. I've never been much of a believer in "the wisdom of the crowds" - it reminds me too much of mob rule. Well, I can’t disagree with Seth on his blog directly, so I’ll have to do it here. Wikipedia does address his primary complaint about research–it serves as an excellent compendium of sources and primary references to get the researcher started. But you can’t trust a reference document that can be manipulated by Stephen Colbert. (Not that I don’t love Colbert… but I wouldn’t go to him for my history paper).

The point of old-fashioned research is not to display your ability to find source material. It’s to ensure that your synthesis of said material is based on *reliable* information. I love Wikipedia as much as the next writer but it’s simply too easy for anyone to change. I’ve never been much of a believer in “the wisdom of the crowds” – it reminds me too much of mob rule.

]]>