Back when I was going to school, various instructors regularly made a point of noting that information on the internet wasn't necessarily reliable. This always seemed amazingly self-evident to me as it should be to anyone that's ever posted documents online. I'm not sure if the warnings were driven more by curmudgeonliness or by receipt of far too many poorly sourced sourced papers. Regardless, I was pleased to see Jenna Johnson report in the Post that the Wikimedia foundation has found ways to encourage more productive engagement:
This school year, dozens of professors from across the country gave students an unexpected assignment: Write Wikipedia entries about public policy issues.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which supports the Web site, organized the project in an effort to bulk up the decade-old online encyclopedia’s coverage of topics ranging from the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to Sudanese refugees in Egypt. Such issues have been treated on the site in much less depth than TV shows, celebrity biographies and other elements of pop culture.
Many students involved in the project have received humbling lessons about open-source writing as their work was revised, attacked or deleted by anonymous critics with unknown credentials…
"I start every semester with the typical speech: ‘If you are turning in a paper and cite Wikipedia, then we have a problem. We need to talk,’ ” said Matt Dull, who is Pearson’s professor at Virginia Tech. But this time, he gave that speech and followed it with the Wiki assignment.
As the article makes clear, this work isn't accepted with open arms by all wiki-editors. Nonetheless, the students seem to be having some productive engagements and the quality of content is being improved. One of the things I always found unsatisfying about school was the meaninglessness of the work I produced. Sure, I was learning things, but it still seemed like quite a waste. This is part of why I blog: even if my audience is rather small it's satisfying to know that my thoughts are recorded in an accessible way online. While nasty editors are a downside, editing Wikipedia entries is a step up from personal blogging. That online dictionary, like other open source projects, are public goods. Even if only a portion of changes make it by other editors, that small improvements makes things a little better for all internet users in the language in question. One of the instructors sums it up nicely:
“It’s the ability for students to feel that their work matters, that it doesn’t get trapped in the classroom,” said Adel Iskander, a Georgetown instructor who assigned Wiki entries in his graduate-level Arab media course. “We’re kind of challenging the academic establishment, in a way.”
Kudos to everyone involved and Jenna Johnson for a non-embarrassing write-up of an internet phenomenon. That's no mean feat.
Recent Comments