>From: Alyson Vogel <alysonv@verizon.net>
>
>I am a strong believer of the online community but I'd be interested to
hear
>what people think about graduate level students using it as a reference. I
>for one object to this, strongly, especially when it is only one of two
>resources quoted for the work.

A graduate student citing even a paper-published, professionally
edited general encyclopedia for graduate level work has got serious
problems. (About the only time it would be appropriate is if
encyclopedias themselves or a related issue is the subject under
investigation, in which case of course one must quote and cite
examples of ones subject matter.)

>The issue should mainly focus on the number
>of sources used too...I'd possibly have less objection had several other
>sources been quoted along with this one but I would seriously question the
>student's judgment and serious intent to gather research,.

Indeed -- even at the high school level I would expect students to
understand that it isn't enough to get a canned answer from someone
else.

>Given that, I'd
>have to say I am prejudiced against wikipedia. It reminds me of the papers
>someone I know says he used to write using only the 'World Book'
>encyclopedia for his undergraduate degree!

Which isn't so much a prejudice against Wikipedia per se, but against
using general encylopedias of any sort inappropriately in an academic
context.

That said, Wikipedia has some additional drawbacks not found in
traditionally published encyclopedias, including instability and
inconsistent quality. The usefulness of encyclopedias as sources at
the grammar school level is that they are a known quality -- that is,
precisely that they do not require students to try to figure out
whether what they are reading is true or not.

For while students should be taught to read critically, they can't
learn that if _everything_ they're given to read is of unknown
quality. Good traditional encyclopedias are of a known quality --
specifically, the known quality of good enough for grammar school
work (as the problem with good traditional encyclopedias is not so
much misinformation as oversimplification). The same is not true of
the Wikipedia, and therefore it is not useful at the only level
encyclopedias are appropriate for citing in academic work.

 From high school level on up, about the only way an Wikipedia (or any
general encyclopedia) should be used as a source of information is,
with great caution, as one place to look for further hints on what
might (or might not) be relevant to a topic -- but if the hints lead
to useable sources, it is those works found through further research
that should be cited in the resulting paper, not the Wikipedia or
traditional encyclopedia. (And whether Wikipedia specifically is
appropriate at the high school level for this purpose will depend
greatly on the discernment/gullibility level of the particular
students involved -- it isn't something I would indiscriminantly
recommend at that level.)

However, not as a _source_ of information, but for _writing_ and
_sharing_ information, I can imagine that contributing to Wikipedia
could be made into an educationally sound student/class project, at
least at the high school level. (Such a project would need to be
carefully considered and designed, but I can imagine some teachers
doing a very good job with it.)

Sharon Krossa
--
Sharon Krossa, skrossa-ml@MedievalScotland.org
Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
     Medieval Scotland - http://MedievalScotland.org/



---
Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb
Please include your name, email address, and school or professional
affiliation in each posting.
To unsubscribe send the following command to:  LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU
SIGNOFF EDTECH

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS