[Year 12 IT Apps] Accuracy of Wikipedia

[Roland Gesthuizen]

Three places within a Wikipedia page is worth checking.

1. The discussion pages are good. This highlights any controversial issues
and burning topics and is the flip side of the page that you first see.
Remember that not everybody agrees about a point of view but these currents
create the islands that we call Wikipedia pages. Whilst you can laugh over
the flat earth society arguing that the page about planet earth should be
modified to read "Most people believe it is round", there is a more serious
side to issues surrounding countries such as Taiwan and leading world
figures.

2. The references at the bottom are great, in some cases they may provide a
better explanation than the original article. Similarly, you can question
something if no reference material is cited. Years ago I started the
Wikipedia page about the first Aboriginal cricket player. OK, I got most of
my stuff over a christmas beer with a fellow staff member but to my
delight, somebody has since added in new material and the missing
references.

3, Lastly, check the page edits. If somebody has vandalised a page, you can
see the changes and reversals. This is especially true if you are
suspictious about something that you are reading.

OK, I'll admit a minor offense. During the VITTA sponsored trip to NECC2008
ot the USA, I had no intention of tipping .. an act that I equate to
legalised begging. I happily created an Australian section on the Wikipedia
tipping page noting that not only do we often forget to tip, just asking an
Australian for a gratuity is considered offensive. I then added a paragraph
about the local charity boxes and blind dogs that are chained to shop
fronts etc. When challenged to fill the pockets of service staff, I would
point them to the modified Wikipedia article. Sadly, a small Brisbane based
group of service staff found my 'error' and corrected it after a couple of
weeks.

I use Wikipedia all the time. Telling students that it is full of errors
smacks of sour grapes. By all means, teach secondary students to gauge the
authority of the words on a page and question what they are reading.
Insisting on primary sources for all their work is probably unrealistic. If
something is stated without any proof or collaboration, it can be probably
dismissed without proof.

Regards Roland (from the south-west corner of the flat earth)

On 17 April 2012 18:20, Pearse, Steven S <pearse.steven.s at edumail.vic.gov.au
> wrote:

>  We had the cyber-safety lecture today (from the government) regarding
> things that we are(or should be) aware of, so I won’t bring it up here.
> What did bring my attention was a story that was told that I found amusing,
> possible but unlikely. It goes as follows.****
>
> ** **
>
> A teacher asked her students to complete a research assignment on
> something historical on a Monday and asked the students to hand it in on
> Friday. In that particular class there was  a student that was very
> diligent, completed work on time etc etc. He finished the assignment by C+P
> (or using it for research) the wiki page and handing it in on the Tuesday.
> The student then proceeded to change the wiki page and a large amount of
> the students used this information to create their assignments and handed
> in work with bogus content. This information stayed on there until the
> teacher looked on Friday and the student confessed to what he had done.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> All the teachers in our staffroom laughed quite rightly, but then I
> started thinking – where did she hear that story from? I didn’t stop to
> ask, but I have my doubts about the accuracy. I also have heard my students
> being told by other teachers not to use Wikipedia at all as its information
> is not reliable. I did some snooping around (albeit briefly) and found that
> it has been likened to Encyclopædia Britannica in terms of accuracy. Most
> bogus things are found and deleted very quickly.
> Personally I have found it to be very accurate when I cross check it with
> other sources, and think that is it getting a lot of bad press. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I would welcome other people’s thoughts on this matter.. Do you instruct
> your students to avoid Wikipedia?****
>
> ** **
>
> (Also – the “Wikipedia is a starting point was my advice”)****
>
> ****
>
> (FYI – although I understand the irony of adding a wiki reliability page
> that is a Wikipedia page J )****
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Steve Pearse****
>
> ** **
>
> Narre Warren P-12****
>
> *Important - *This email and any attachments may be confidential. If
> received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening
> or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any
> loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender
> or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files
> our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
> and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early
> Childhood Development.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> IT Applications Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/infotech/itapplications3-4.html -
> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority <br>
> http://www.vitta.org.au  - VITTA Victorian Information Technology
> Teachers Association Inc <br>
> http://www.swinburne.edu.au/ict/schools - Swinburne University
>



-- 
--
Roland Gesthuizen - eLearning Coordinator - Keysborough Secondary College

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret
Mead
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/itapps/attachments/20120419/9e46f618/attachment.html