Hmmmmmm. So this week was an interesting one for me as up until very recently I was one of those people that thought Wikipedia was BAD!!!  I knew it was ok for very general information, but overall I often instructed my students that it was not a source they were allowed to use.  I was all on board for changing my opinion of Wikipedia and wiki’s in general and then I listened to the NPR podcast and that swung me back somewhat.  With that said though, I learned quite a bit that I hadn’t considered or knew before.

So, to start, I didn’t love the readings this week.  Throughout the course, Dr. Sharma has provided excellent resources, but this week I didn’t feel as though I was as engaged in these particular readings.  “A Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Knowledge Building with Wikis – a Systemic and Cognitive Perspectives” put forth some really great information on how wiki’s help us learn, but I thought it could have been done in far fewer words.  I know that academic essay’s often go into far further detail than a normal article being published, but I just felt that a lot of what was written in that article was unnecessary for the point they were making and the general audience they were addressing.  The overall gist of the 8 pages is that by participating in the development of a wiki we are constructing knowledge both through the participation as well as the reading of the wiki. The act of contributing to the wiki is externalizing knowledge while reading the wiki and the contributions of the wiki is internalizing knowledge.  This makes perfect sense and I think is applicable in many areas of life, not limited to wiki’s. Anytime you are going to “externalize” your knowledge and make it public, of course, you are going to firm up what you know, and examine it to ensure clarity on the topic. No one wants to look foolish when making their knowledge public.  Heck, I feel that way every time I write one of these blog posts. Obviously, that is breaking the article don’t to the simplest points, but that is what I took from it.

The other two mandatory articles were also just meh.  The article by Wadewitz made some good points about getting students started with wiki’s and that when first starting with Wikipedia it is wise to have students essentially wade in by starting small rather than a big jump.  She lost me a little when she started to talk about activism and Wikipedia. Actually, I am a little torn about what I am going to say because I know that sometimes there is a difference between what happens and what is reality.  On the Wikipedia Wiki of “What Wikipedia is Not”, it clearly states that Wikipedia is neutral. Now, I also know that on the NPR podcast, Steven Walling stated that 91% of editors are male. So, I understand why Wadewitz would push for more female editors, but I guess I don’t like her approach that “every edit is political”.  It seems like she isn’t even trying to live up to the ethos of Wikipedia. Rather than every edit being political, how about she encourages more women to become editors and edit neutrally, as that is what is the expected norm. Just my two cents.

The last article was probably the most practical and it did clearly outline how wiki’s can be used educationally.  I felt that it lacked substance and so much more could have been provided. If this were an article on a Wikipedia page it would have the indicator “This article needs attention from an expert…..”.  I did like the easy approach to the article and the four main areas that it highlighted; collaboration, sharing, organization, and instruction. I am not sure my staff is quite ready for wiki’s but I at least from this article have a few clear cut examples that could be presented to them.  

Visiting the various wiki examples was fairly interesting.  It was really interesting seeing the difference in the before and after’s for the chemistry wiki’s.  It is amazing what the students were able to add and they clearly brought their knowledge to the table.  I actually thought that the Minecraft wiki was what I think of as an ideal use for a wiki. It surrounds a hobby/past time and practitioners of that hobby can share their knowledge on the topic on the one wiki.  This allows beginners to gain information and later on possibly be practitioners who can later be contributors also. When you think about learning being collaborative, this is a perfect way to approach it, practitioner and apprentice, with the apprentice eventually moving up the ladder to a practitioner.

In general what I enjoyed the most this week was the NPR podcast.  I thought it was well done, insightful, and thought-provoking. I knew from the Wadewitz article that Wikipedia did not accept “original research” and that any articles or additional tidbits being added to existing articles needed to be substantiated with sources, but I was shocked that Wikipedia does not recognize information based off of primary sources.  As someone who was a history major, this is somewhat appalling as it is the primary source that is the most trustworthy. No one can put a slant on a primary source as you constantly find in secondary source work. I believe at one point Messer-Kruse says something about how Wikipedia would rather be verifiable than true, and although it isn’t exactly true, it does feel that way a bit from some of the contributors to the podcast.  Overall, by the end of that podcast, after hearing from Walling, I did have a better feeling about Wikipedia and the overall validity of the platform. The lack of diversity in the editors is concerning, but it sounds like they are attempting to reach out and work on that. In general, I think I can safely say after all that I have learned from this week, I will be allowing Wikipedia as a source in my classes.