<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Get Your Facts Straight: [b]Wikipedia Can Help Your Children Learn[/b]
EmpowHer
Ever since Wikipedia's inception in 2001, high school and college students have turned to it for information-gathering and research when completing their assignments or writing papers. ...
and more »
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Wed 1st June 2011, 1:42pm) 
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Get Your Facts Straight: [b]Wikipedia Can Help Your Children Learn[/b]
EmpowHer
Ever since Wikipedia's inception in 2001, high school and college students have turned to it for information-gathering and research when completing their assignments or writing papers. ...
and more »
View the article
The comment dialogue is outstanding on this one.
And now it's on the Register......
So, use the Wiki-Nuts to scare the crap out of your students?
Actually it might be workable. (Sadistic, but workable.
)
QUOTE
This is achieved, however, not by the kids finding stuff out on the notoriously unreliable site, but rather by getting them to write material for it. Fear of criticism by the obsessive Wiki-fiddler community apparently motivates youngsters far more than the worry that their academic supervisors might catch them out in an error.
So, use the Wiki-Nuts to scare the crap out of your students?
Actually it might be workable. (Sadistic, but workable.
)
I don't mean to sound misogynist or anything, but it's difficult to take these people seriously when they can't even correctly spell the word "empower."
As for the blog posting itself, I know I'm stating the obvious, but the story doesn't logically follow the headline. Essentially she's saying that children will try to do a better job of writing about someone or something when they're told that their work will be (or must be, by them) posted to Wikipedia. Putting aside the issue of selection bias and (in this case) BLP issues, is there really something about Wikipedia specifically that makes it a more effective motivator for something like this, as opposed to, say, the school's own website or some other site where the material posted isn't subject to change by other users? Is it simply because Wikipedia has such a large search-engine footprint? What's the justification for saying Wikipedia is motivating these children, as opposed to some other publishing platform? Wouldn't the same (or better) effect be achieved if the students were told their submissions were going to be printed in a book that would be sold in stores, for example? Of course, then they might demand royalties, but still, I'm not seeing the big draw here.
As for the blog posting itself, I know I'm stating the obvious, but the story doesn't logically follow the headline. Essentially she's saying that children will try to do a better job of writing about someone or something when they're told that their work will be (or must be, by them) posted to Wikipedia. Putting aside the issue of selection bias and (in this case) BLP issues, is there really something about Wikipedia specifically that makes it a more effective motivator for something like this, as opposed to, say, the school's own website or some other site where the material posted isn't subject to change by other users? Is it simply because Wikipedia has such a large search-engine footprint? What's the justification for saying Wikipedia is motivating these children, as opposed to some other publishing platform? Wouldn't the same (or better) effect be achieved if the students were told their submissions were going to be printed in a book that would be sold in stores, for example? Of course, then they might demand royalties, but still, I'm not seeing the big draw here.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.