Wikipedia

From IAE-Pedia

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Editing by Special Interest Groups 3 Other Articles About Wikipedia 4 Implications in Information Age Education 5 Lie Detectors 6 Authors of this Document 7 References

[edit] Introduction

The IAE-pedia makes use of the MediaWiki software, as does the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia is a huge success story. It represents the work of many thousands of volunteers, writing and editing each other's work.

This open writing and editing process has not been with its difficulties. Thus, there is a growing amount of literature on successes, trials and tribulations, and changes that had to be made to deal with certain difficult situations. Some of these are presented here.

[edit] Editing by Special Interest Groups

Tracking Wikipedia's not-so-neutral editors (Wired Campus, 8/14/07) is a short article that summarizes research done on who is editing Wikipedia entries. Quoting from the reference:

The answer… is in Mr. Griffith’s Wikipedia Scanner, a searchable database that links anonymous Wikipedia edits with the businesses and organizations from which those markups came.

The result is a pretty entertaining Web site — and a useful tool for students looking for insight into the inner workings of Wikipedia. Web surfers can watch as an editor from Bob Jones University calls the campus museum “the great collection of religious art in the Western Hemisphere.” And they can gasp as an official with Diebold, the company that makes a controversial line of e-voting machines, deletes wholesale a 15-paragraph section describing computer scientists’ concerns with the devices.

The article goes on to point out that often these one-sided editing efforts are quickly edited by othr people, tending to lead to articles presenting a somewhat unbiased point of view.

Corporate self-interest rules Wikipedia edits is an 8/20/07 article from eSchool News.

[edit] Other Articles About Wikipedia

(This is a work in progress. Volunteers are encouraged to help out on writing this page. A Google search on the term Wikipedia produces more than 96 million hits. See http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html, a study comparing the Wikipedia with the Britannica .)

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7026.pdf "Seven things You Need to Know About Wikipedia"

http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/UsingWikipediatoReenvisio/46449 "Using Wikipedia to Reenvision the Term Paper"

[edit] Implications in Information Age Education

This multiple author, multiple editor form of writing as a genre that is of growing importance. Thus, it adds one more challenge to designing and implementing a good educational system for the Information Age.

Project-based learning is a teaching/learning methodology used by many teachers. A variety of software now exists to facilitate members of a team to interact electronically as they jointly write and edit a report that is part of their project work. In many situations, it may be appropriate for the team to produce a Wiki page that goes on a Website where it will be available to the rest of the class and to other people who are interested in the project topic. This type of collaborative writing for Web publication adds authenticity to the assignment.

[edit] Lie Detectors

Anything that a person tells you, writes for you to read, videos for you to view, and so on is suspect. We have always had the difficulty that self interests are reflected in every form of communication. Even the best of modern lie detector systems is not very good.

In the distant past, people received some protection from lies and from misleading information because they lived in small hunter-gatherer groups where everybody knew everybody and all had long term involvement in the group.

Reading and writing changed that. The challenge to dealing with misrepresentations and outright lies in writing grew as printing presses were developed and then as mass education began to occur.

The world of research and academia developed a peer reviewing system that has proven very useful. This, along with the cost of publishing journals, has helped to keep published research articles reasonably "honest." Even there, however, from time to time we encounter situations in which researchers fake their data. More often, one can detect bias in interpretation of data.

Now we have a variety of communication and publications vehicles facilitated by progress in the field of Information and Communication Technology. Literally anyone can communicate or attempt to communicate with large groups of people. (I am writing this material directly onto a page that has already been posted to the Web. When I click on Save, this new material will be posed to the Web.) Perhaps the worst example of this is the spam that we receive. Note, however, that ads on radio and television are a somewhat similar, but a more regulated form of spam. We accept that form of spam because it allows us to receive free radio and television broadcasts.

Thus, we are bombarded with false and misleading information even if we do not make use of the Web. A very important component of an Information Age Education is to learn to deal with life in a world where we continually are exposed to false and/or purposely misleading information.

We each need to become skilled in being a lie detector. This is a difficult learning challenge. A young child has little ability for self protection. That is why, for example, that we make an effort to protect young children from television programming and advertising. As a child gains in maturity and in informal and formal education, the child can get much better at the world of spam. Help in doing so is a responsibility of home, school, and the community.

The Wikipedia represents an interesting compromise between Web publication with no review process, and publication with a carefully done peer reviewing process. Most of the articles in Wikipedia undergo the scrutiny of good hearted, honest volunteers who do a type of peer reviewing and editing. The overall result is a relatively good. I personally make very frequent use of the Wikipedia.

However, when I use the Wikipedia I do so in a context of having a great deal of knowledge and experience gained over the years. I also tend to do so in the context of seeking and using multiple sources of information, and I have a suspicious mind. The multiple sources of information—including what is in my head, access to many different Web materials, access to my personal library of books and journals, and access to other people are all important aspects screening what I read on the Web. In journalism, they call it "fact checking." I call it using common sense. We need to help all students develop this type of common sense.

Here is a more positive spin on the information given in this section. Often one receives information from sources that are quite trustworthy. For example, you go to a doctor, tests are run, a diagnosis is made, and a treatment is recommended. Of course, you can seek a second opinion from another doctor. In addition, you can do research through talking to people you know, making use of hardcopy library materials, and using the Web. A great many people now make use of the Web in this situation.

[edit] Authors of this Document

The original version of this document was written by David Moursund in August 2007. People who make significant additions or changes to the document are invited to include their names in this section.

[edit] References

Giles, Jim (9/20/07). Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust. NewScientistTech. Retrieved 10/2/07: http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20--now-with-added-trust.html Quoting from the article:

It is a problem that dogs every Wikipedia entry. Because anyone can edit any entry at any time, users do not generally know if they are looking at a carefully researched article, one that has had errors mischievously inserted, or a piece written by someone pushing their own agenda. As a result, although Wikipedia has grown in size and reputation since its launch in 2001 - around 7 per cent of all internet users now visit the site on any given day - its information continues to be treated cautiously.

That could be about to change. Over the past few years, a series of measures aimed at reducing the threat of vandalism and boosting public confidence in Wikipedia have been developed. Last month a project designed independently of Wikipedia, called WikiScanner, allowed people to work out what the motivations behind certain entries might be by revealing which people or organisations the contributions were made by (see "Who's behind the entries?"). Meanwhile the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity that oversees the online encyclopedia, now says it is poised to trial a host of new trust-based capabilities.

Heleft. Miguel (12/15/07). Wikipedia Competitor Being Tested by Google. Retrieved 12/17/07: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/technology/15web.html.

Quoting from the article:

SAN FRANCISCO — Google is testing a new Web service intended to become a repository of knowledge from experts on various topics, one that could turn into a competitor to Wikipedia and other sites.

…

The service, called Knol, which is short for knowledge, would allow people to create Web pages on any topic. It is designed to include features that permit readers to submit comments, rate pages and suggest changes. However, unlike Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit an entry, only the author of a “knol,” as the pages in the service would be called, would be allowed to edit. Different authors could have competing pages on the same topic.

Knapp, Sue (10/17/07). Dartmouth researchers confirm the power of altruism in Wikipedia. Dartmouth News. Retrieved 10/20/07: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/17.html. Quoting from the article:

The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.

The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users.

Martin, Nicole (9/21/07). Wikipedia clamps down on 'unreliable' editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9/21/07: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml. Quoting from the article:

Ordinary users will no longer be able to edit information and to see those changes appear instantly on the screen.

Under plans being considered they will have to submit changes to a team of “trusted editors” who would then decide whether to update the entries.

The move follows complaints that the site is open to abuse from individuals and organisations wanting to slander their rivals or competitors.

…

Under the proposed changes, a group of editors will moderate the entries and decide what should be posted.

These trusted editors will have to have proved their commitment to Wikipedia by posting 30 reliable changes within 30 days.

The German-language version of the site has been chosen to test the changes first because of its high regard for accuracy, but if the feedback is positive they might also be applied to the English-language one.

Read, Brock (10/3/07). A war of words on Wikipedia. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 10/3/07: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2426?=atwc. Quoting from the article:

When Wikipedia was just a wee Web site with lofty goals, contributors worked feverishly to create articles on just about everything under the sun. But now that the encyclopedia’s English-language version boasts over two million entries, its administrators can stop wondering if the site is comprehensive enough. Quality, not quantity, has become priority number one.

Editors are now fanning out across Wikipedia, deleting uncited claims, re-writing knotty passages, and identifying articles that seem trivial or otherwise unworthy. Their efforts may well enhance Wikipedia’s status in academe. But the encyclopedia’s shift in priorities has also led it into an “awkward adolescence,” writes K.G. Schneider in CIO. According to Ms. Schneider, Wikipedia’s “inclusionists” (who argue that the site should continue to encourage new entries) and its “deletionists” (who advocate cutting articles deemed fatuous or picayune) are now engaged in a pitched battle.

Wikipedia Review.(n.d.). The Wikipedia review. Retrieved 12/9/07: http://wikipediareview.com/.

Wired Campus (8/14/07). Tracking Wikipedia's Not-So-Neutral Editors. The Wired Campus. Retrieved 8/14/07: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2302.Quoting from the article:

When word spread last year that Congressional staff members were feverishly editing their bosses’ Wikipedia entries, Virgil Griffith asked himself a sensible question: How many company spokesmen and campus officials were doing the same thing?

The answer, as it turns out, is quite a lot. And the proof is in Mr. Griffith’s Wikipedia Scanner, a searchable database that links anonymous Wikipedia edits with the businesses and organizations from which those markups came.